-^'' 


PA 

6604 

H44 

1917 

MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


m 

"i'!:i-i 


Tfe  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 


A  Thesis 

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  in  partial  fulfiHraent  of 
the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


By 
Edward  Hoch  Heffner 


Philadelphia,  Pa. 
1917 


'KQ' 


Mnttifrait^  of  J^^ttnatllwanta 


The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 


A  Thesis 

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  in  partial  fulfillment  of 
the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


By 
Edward  Hoch  Heffner 


Philadelphia,  Pa. 
1917 


Lancaster,  Pa. 
Intelligencer  Printing  Co. 


v4^ 


The  writer  takes  opportunity  here  to  express  his  sincere 
thanks  to  Prof.  J.  C.  Rolfe,  Prof.  W.  B.  McDaniel,  Prof.  R.  G. 
Kent,  Prof.  G.  D.  Hadzsits,  Prof.  H.  B.  Van  Deventer,  and 
Dr.  T.  A.  Buenger,  for  the  assistance  and  encouragement  given 
to  him  during  the  preparation  of  this  thesis. 


3G1263 


CONTENTS 

Chapter  I 

Page 

Introduction I 

Chapter  II 

Primary  sequence  dependent  upon  the  perfect: 

1.  In  final  clauses,  including  substantive  clauses  developed  from  the 

volitive 3 

(a)  Other  than  those  dependent  upon  certum  est  and  the  perfect  of 

mereo  and  its  compounds 3 

(b)  Dependent  upon  certum  est 1 1 

(c)  Dependent  upon  the  perfect  of  mereo  and  its  compounds 12 

2.  In  indirect  questions 13 

3.  In  relative  clauses  of  characteristic 16 

4.  In  consecutive  clauses 18 

5.  In  conditional  clauses  of  comparison 22 

Chapter  III 

Violations  of  the  sequence  principle: 

1.  Repraesentatio 23 

2.  Violations  caused  by  other  factors 32 

Chapter  IV 

Apparent  violations  of  the  sequence  principle: 

1.  In  connection  with  the  phrase  quod  sciam 34 

2.  Other  apparent  violations 35 

Chapter  V 
Instances  of  mechanical  conformity  to  the  sequence  principle 37 

Chapter  VI 
Shift  in  the  sequence 45 

Chapter  VII 
Conclusion 46 


The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 


Introduction 

The  aim  of  this  study  has  been  to  examine  the  tenses  of  the 
dependent  subjunctives  in  Plautus  from  two  points  of  view: 
in  the  first  place,  to  determine  to  what  extent  the  tense  usage 
is  at  variance  with  the  familiar  doctrine  of  the  Sequence  of 
Tenses,  and  to  explain  the  exceptions,  real  or  apparent,  to  the 
rules  of  Sequence;  and,  in  the  second  place,  to  ascertain  what 
evidence  there  is  against  the  theory  that  the  dependent,  just  as 
the  independent,  subjunctives  denote  absolute  time  and  not 
time  relative  to  that  of  the  verb  in  the  principal  clause.  (See 
below.) 

In  1886-1888  Professor  W.  G.  Hale  made  a  violent  attack 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Sequence  of  Tenses  {The  Sequence  of 
Tenses  in  Latin,  American  Journal  of  Philology,  VII.  446-465; 
VIII.  46-77;  IX.  158-177).  His  conclusion  briefly  summed  up 
in  his  own  words  is  that  "in  dependent  as  in  independent  sub- 
junctives, the  tense  conveys  meaning,  and  owes  its  choice  to 
that  fact"  {A.  J.  P.,  VII.  465),  or  again,  that  ''the  tenses  of  the 
Latin  subjunctive,  alike  in  dependent  and  in  independent  sentences, 
tell  their  own  temporal  story — that  no  such  thing  as  is  meant  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  Sequence  of  Tenses  exists"  {A.  J.  P.,  VIII.  59). 
Professor  B.  L.  Gildersleeve  in  a  reply  to  the  first  two  of  Pro- 
fessor Hale's  articles  took  exception  to  Professor  Hale's  conclu- 
sion (^.  /.  P.,  VIII.  228-231).  In  the  third  of  Professor  Hale's 
articles  he  restates  his  doctrine  briefly  in  the  words,  "the  tenses 
of  the  subjunctive  convey  meaning"  (A.  J.  P.,  IX.  160),  and 
calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  earlier  statement  "that  no 
such  thing  as  is  meant  by  the  Sequence  of  Tenses  exists'^  was  in- 
cautious. Some  years  later,  A.  T.  Walker,  now  Professor  of 
Latin  at  the  University  of  Kansas,  dealt  with  the  subject  in  his 
doctoral  dissertation  (The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Latin:  A  Study 
Based  on  Caesar's  Gallic   War,  Lawrence,  Kansas,   1899),  and 


2  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

partially  refuted  Professor  Hale's  argument.  In  1913  the  Joint 
Committee  on  Grammatical  Nomenclature  {Report,  57,  60-62, 
University  of  Chicago  Press,  1913)  suggested  that  the  use  of 
the  tenses  in  Latin  be  taught  in  accordance  with  Professor  Hale's 
doctrine.  In  December,  1914,  Professor  R.  G.  Kent  read  a 
paper  before  the  American  Philological  Association  at  its  meeting 
at  Haverford  College,  entitled  The  ''Passing''  of  the  Sequence  of 
Tenses  {The  Classical  Weekly,  9.  2-719-13),  in  which  he  examined 
the  material  used  in  Professor  Hale's  articles  together  with  a 
certain  number  of  additional  examples  drawn  mainly  from  the 
Latin  commonly  read  in  the  Schools  and  in  the  first  year  of  the 
College  {The  Classical  Weekly,  9.  3,  footnote  10).  Professor 
Kent  protested  against  the  "the  shelving  of  the  principle  of  the 
Sequence  of  Tenses"  {The  Classical  Weekly,  9.  13).  In  the  spring 
of  191 5,  Professor  A.  T.  Walker  {Sequence  or  Harmony  of  Tenses?, 
The  Classical  Journal,  10.  246-251;  291-299)  further  discussed 
the  subject  and  argued  for  a  retention  of  the  term  sequence.  A 
few  brief  discussions  of  Professor  Kent's  articles  by  Miss  Susan 
Fowler,  of  the  Brearley  School,  New  York  City,  by  Miss  Eliza- 
beth Mcjimsey  Tyng,  of  the  Packer  Collegiate  Institute,  and  by 
Professor  B.  M.  Allen,  of  the  Phillips  Andover  Academy,  with 
rejoinder  by  Professor  Kent,  appeared  in  the  spring  of  1916 
{The  Classical  Weekly,  9.   193-198). 

The  text  used  as  a  basis  in  this  investigation  is  the  edition  by 
Lindsay  in  the  Scriptorum  Classicorum  Bibliotheca  Oxoniensis. 
Chief  among  other  editions  consulted  is  that  by  Goetz  and 
Schoell.  Unless  otherwise  stated,  the  citations  are  from  Lind- 
say's edition.  Illustrative  material  drawn  from  authors  other 
than  Plautus  has  been  included,  but  the  examples  thus  used  are 
not  the  fruits  of  a  systematic  investigation,  and  have  been 
embodied  merely  because  they  seemed  to  be  helpful  in  explaining 
the  passages  in  connection  with  which  they  are  quoted. 


II 

Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect 

In  this  Chapter  are  treated  the  instances  of  the  perfect  indica- 
tive as  a  primary  tense.  Inasmuch  as  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases  the  perfect  takes  the  secondary  sequence,  it  seemed  ad- 
visable to  bring  together  here  the  examples  of  primary  sequence, 
largely  because  of  their  value  in  a  comparative  study  of  the 
material  in  Chapter  V.  The  perfect  tense  is  primary  when  it 
denotes  the  present  resultant  state  from  a  past  act,  and  secondary 
when  it  denotes  the  past  act.  The  line  of  division  between  the 
two  capacities  in  which  this  tense  serves  is  frequently  hard  to 
draw.  Occasionally  we  find  examples  of  the  perfect  clearly 
denoting  a  present  state  and  still  taking  the  secondary  sequence, 
as  may  be  seen  from  the  examples  in  a  portion  of  Chapter  V 
(pp.  40-44).  The  dependent  subjunctives  are  treated  in  order 
according  to  the  syntax  of  the  clause  in  which  they  stand. 

I.  In  final  clauses,  including  substantive  clauses  developed 
from  the  volitive: 

(a)  Other  than  those  dependent  upon  certum  est  and  the 
perfect  of  mereo  and  its  compounds. 

Amph.  II  sq. 

(nam  uos  quidem  id  iam  scitis  concessum  et  datum 
mi  esse  ab  dis  aliis,  nuntiis  praesim  et  lucro) : 

Praesim  stands  in  a  substantive  clause  developed  from  the 
volitive  and  depends  on  scitis  concessum  et  datum  esse.  Although 
the  infinitives  are  in  the  perfect  tense,  Mercury  wishes  to  call 
attention  not  to  the  act  of  giving  and  granting  of  certain  powers 
and  duties  to  him,  but  to  his  present  possession  of  those  powers. 
The  passage  therefore  means  "you  know  by  this  time  that  I 
have  this  duty,  which  has  been  granted  and  given  to  me,  of 
being  in  charge  .  .  .  .",  which  is  a  present  state  and  requires 
the  primary  sequence. 

3 


4  The  Sequence  oj  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Amph.  64  sqq. 

nunc  hoc  me  orare  a  uobis  iussit  luppiter 
ut  conquistores  singula  in  subsellia 
eant  per  totam  caueam  spectatoribus, 
si  quoi  fauitores  delegates  uiderint, 
ut  is  in  cauea  pignus  capiantur  togae; 
In   this  sentence  itissit  denotes   the  present  state  resulting 
from  the  act  of  ordering.     The  principal  clause  means  "I  have 
an    order    that     .     .     .     ."     The   acts   denoted    by    eant   and 
capiantur  are  future  relatively  to  the  time  of  speaking. 
Cf.  M.  G.  971  iussit,  p.  9. 

Amph.  195 

me  a  portu  praemisit  domum  ut  haec  nuntiem  uxori  suae, 
At  the  time  Sosia  says  these  words  to  Mercury  the  message 
with  which  he  has  been  entrusted  is  still  to  be  delivered  to 
Alcmena.  The  principal  clause  means  "I  am  here,  having 
been  sent  ahead  home  from  the  harbor  to  announce  .  .  .  ," 
which  is  a  present  resultant  state  and  demands  the  primary 
sequence. 

For  the  converse  of  this,  compare  Horace  Serm.  II.  6.  34  sqq. 

Ante  secundam 
Roscius  orabat  sibi  adesses  ad  Puteal  eras, 
de  re  communi  scribae  magna  atque  nova  te 
orabant  hodie  meminisses,  Quinte,  reverti. 

Amph.  869  sq. 

simul  Alcumenae,  quam  uir  insontem  probri 
Amphitruo  accusat,  ueni  ut  auxilium/emm; 
Vent  is  equivalent  to  adsum,  a  present  state,  and  for  this 
reason  governs  the  primary  sequence. 

Aul.  743 

at  ego  deos  credo  uoluisse  ut  apud  me  te  in  neruo  enicem. 
Here  uoluisse  means  "I  have  willed,"  "desire,"  which  is  a 
present  state  and  requires  the  primary  sequence. 
See  on  Capt.  267,  p.  6. 

Bacch.  350  sqq. 

exorsa  haec  tela  non  male  omnino  mihi  est: 
ut  amantem  erilem  copem  facerem  filium. 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent   Upon  the  Perfect  5 

ita  feci  ut  auri  quantum  uellet  sumeret, 
quantum  autem  lubeat  reddere  ut  reddat  patri. 

As  is  indicated  by  the  secondary  tense  sumeret,  the  speaker 
has  his  attention  fixed  on  the  past  act  denoted  by  feci,  and  for 
this  reason  we  might  have  expected  him  to  use  redderet  instead 
of  reddat;  but  the  present  is  substituted  by  the  figure  of  repraesen- 
tatio  to  indicate  that  the  act  of  reddat  is  future  relatively  to  that 
of  sumeret. 

Goetz  and  Schoell  punctuate  with  a  comma  at  the  end  of  350 
and  a  period  at  the  end  of  351. 

See  p.  26. 

Bacch.  533 

uerum  postremo  impetraui  ut  ne  quid  ei  suscenseat. 

Here  the  principal  clause  means  "but  at  last  I  have  him  per- 
suaded," which  denotes  a  present  state,  and  therefore  demands 
the  primary  sequence  in  the  substantive  clause. 

Bacch  689  sq. 

MN.     ego  patrem  exoraui.     CH,     nempe  ergo  hoc  ut 

faceret  quod  loquor? 
MN.     immo  tibi  ne  noceat  neu  quid  ob  eam  vera  suscenseat; 

The  tense  of  faceret  shows  that  the  speaker's  attention  is 
fixed  on  the  act  of  beseeching.  The  presents  noceat  and  sus- 
censeat are  to  be  explained  by  repraesentatio. 

Bacch.  1082 

ego  dare  me  meo  gnato  institui,   ut  animo  opsequium 
sumere  possit; 

Institui  means  "my  mind  is  made  up,"  "my  decision  is," 
a  present  state,  and  therefore  governs  the  primary  sequence. 

Capt.  35  sq. 

hisce  autem  inter  sese  hunc  confinxerunt  dolum, 
quo  pacto  hie  seruos  suom  erum  hinc  amittat  domum. 

Hunc  confinxerunt  dolum  is  the  equivalent  of  "they  have  this 
piece  of  trickery  devised,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes 
the  primary  sequence. 


6  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Capt.  266  sq. 

nunc  senex  est  in  tostrina,  nunc  iam  cultros  adtinet. 
ne  id  quidem,   inuolucre  inicere,    uoluit,  uestem  ut  ne 
inqidnet. 
Imiolucre  ....  uoluit  ....  is  equivalent  to  "he  has 
no  napkin  on  him  to  prevent  staining,"  a  present  state,  which 
demands  the  primary  sequence.     Nunc,  nunc  iam  enhance  the 
intensity  of  the  present  state. 
See  on  Aid.  743,  p.  4. 

Capt.  378  sqq. 

nunc  ita  conuenit  inter  me  atque  hunc,  Tyndare, 
ut  tu  aestumatum  in  Alidem  mittam  ad  patrem, 
si  non  rebitas  hue,  ut  uiginti  minas 
dem  pro  te. 
Conuenit  .     .     .     .is  equivalent  to  "now  there  is  this  arrange- 
ment ....  that  .     .     ,"  which  is  a  present  state  requiring 
the  primary  sequence. 

Capt.  395  sqq. 

dicito  patri  quo  pacto  mihi  cum  hoc  conuenerit 

de  huius  filio.     PHILOC.  quae  memini,  mora  mera  est 

monerier. 
TY.  ut  eum  redimat  et  remittat  nostrum  hue  amborum 

uicem. 

Redimat  and  remittat  depend  on  the  perfect  subjunctive 
conuenerit  in  the  indirect  question  in  395,  which  is  equivalent 
in  meaning  to  "what  arrangement  there  is  .  .  .  ,"  a  present 
state,  and  thus  demands  the  primary  sequence. 

Capt.  837 

nescioquem  ad  portum  nactus  es  ubi  cenes,  eo  fastidis. 
Nactus  es  is  equivalent  to  "you  chance  to  have,"  which  denotes 
a  present  state,  and  therefore  requires  the  primary  sequence. 
See  on  True.  280,  p.  11. 

Cas.  52  sqq. 

pater  adlegauit  uilicum  qui  posceret 
sibi  istanc  uxorem:  is  sperat,  si  ei  sit  data, 
sibi  fore  paratas  clam  uxorem  excubias  for  is; 
filius  is  autem  armigerum  adlegauit  suom 
qui  sibi  eam  uxorem  poscat: 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  7 

Filius  ....  qui  is  equivalent  to  "his  armor-bearer  has  a 
commission  .  .  .to,"  which  is  a  present  state,  and  therefore 
demands  the  primary  sequence.  In  52  we  should  have  expected 
poscat  for  posceret,  for  the  context  of  the  passage  shows  that 
adlegauit  there  as  well  as  in  55  really  denotes  a  present  state, 
although  in  the  earlier  verse  the  sequence  is  secondary.  The 
commands  of  both,  that  of  father  and  son,  are  being  carried  out 
at  the  time  this  passage  is  being  spoken,  and  the  girl's  reply  is 
still  to  be  received.  The  secondary  tense  posceret  is  due  to  a 
mechanical  sequence. 

Cas.  105 

praefeci  ruri  recte  qui  curet  tamen. 

Curet  is  in  the  present  subjunctive  because  praefeci  .... 
qui'is  equivalent  to  "I  have  a  manager  on  my  estate  to,"  a  present 
state.  We  see  from  no  that  curet  is  future  also  relatively  to 
the  time  of  speaking. 

Epid.  354  sq. 

nunc  iterum  ut  fallatur  pater  tibique  auxilium  apparetur 
inueni : 

Inueni  means  "I  know,"  and  therefore  takes  the  primary 
sequence.  Nunc  emphasizes  the  idea  of  a  present  state.  The 
acts  of  fallatur  and  apparetur  are  future  also  relatively  to  the 
time  of  speaking. 

See  on  Capt.  569,  p.  17;  Merc.  254,  p.  15;  M.  G.  767,  p.  8 

Epid.  444  sq. 

non  repperisti,  adulescens,  tranquillum  locum 
ubi  tuas  uirtutes  explices  ut  postulas. 

Repperisti  is  equivalent  to  habes,  and  therefore  takes  the 
primary  sequence.  Explices  is  future  also  relatively  to  the 
time  of  speaking. 

Epid.  570  sq. 

AC.     Quid  est,  pater,  quod  me  exciuisti  ante  aedis?     PE. 
ut  matrem  tuam 

uideas,  adeas,  aduenienti  des  salutem  atque  osculum. 
Ego  te  exciui  ut,  to  be  supplied  in  thought  from  exciuisti,  is 


8  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plauius 

equivalent  to  "you  are  here,  having  been  called  out  by  me  that 
.  •  .  .  ,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes  the  primary 
sequence. 

Cf.  Xen.  Anab.  I.  6.  6.  riapexdXeaa  u^xaq,  avBpeq  ^(Xot,  oxox; 
auv  uijlTv  PouXeu6[X£voi;  o  tt  Slxatov  eaxt  xal  7cp6q  Oewv  xal  icpit;  avOpwzwv 
TOUTo  xpd^o)  xept  'Op6vTa  toutouI. 

Jkfe«.  787-8  sq. 

quotiens  monstraui  tibi  uiro  ut  morem  geras, 

quid  ille  faciat  ne  id  opserues,  quo  eat,  quid  rerum  gerat. 

Monstraui  tibi  is  equivalent  to  "you  know,"  and  therefore 
takes  the  primary  sequence. 

Merc.  667  sqq. 

Quoniam  a  uiro  ad  me  rus  aduenit  nuntius 
rus  non  iturum,  feci  ego  ingenium  meum, 
reueni,  ut  ilium  persequar  qui  me  fugit. 
Reueni  means  "I  am  come  back,"  a  present  state,  and  there- 
fore takes  the  primary  sequence. 

M.  G.  295  sq. 

nam  tibi  iam  ut  pereas  paratum  est  dupliciter  nisi  sup- 

primis 
tuom  stultiloquium. 
Paratum  is  an  adjective  here,  and  the  sequence  is  therefore 
primary. 

See  on  Pseud.  579,  p.  10. 

M.  G.  728  sq. 

quae  probast  mers,  pretium  ei   statuit,   pro   uirtute   ut 

ueneat, 
quae  improbast,  pro  mercis  uitio  dominum  pretio  pauper et, 
Statuit  means  "is  fixed,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes 
the  primary  sequence. 

The  text  of  728,  however,  is  dubious.  Goetz  and  Schoell  in 
their  editio  maior  (1890)  read  quae  probast  et  pretio  digna,  pro 
uirtute  ut  ueneat. 

M.  G.  766  sqq. 

mihi  opus  est  opera  tua, 
Periplectomene ;  nam  ego  inueni  lepidam  sycophantiam 
qui  admutiletur  miles  usque  caesariatus,  atque  uti 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  9 

huic  amanti  ac  Philocomasio  hanc  ecficiamus  copiam, 

ut  hie  earn  ahducat  habeatque. 
Inueni  is  equivalent  to  scio^  and  therefore  takes  the  primary 
sequence. 

See  on  Capt.  569,  p.  17;  Epid.  355,  p.  7;  Merc.  254,  p.  15. 

M.  G.  971  sq. 

nunc  te  orare  atque  opsecrare  iussit  ut  earn  copiam 
sibi  potestatemque  facias. 

Nunc.  .  .  .  ^'«55i/ w^  here,  as  inylw^/t.  64,  means  "you  now 
have  an  order  to,"  which  is  a  present  state,  and  requires  the 
primary  sequence.  The  notion  of  present  state  is  emphasized 
by  nunc. 

See  on  Amph.  64,  p.  5. 

M.  G.  1 145  sq. 

nam  ipse  miles  concubinam  intro  abiit  oratum  suam 
ab  se  ut  abeat  cum  sorore  et  matre  Athenas. 
Intro  abiit  is  equivalent  to  intro  est,  a  present  state,  and  there- 
fore the  sequence  is  primary. 

M.  G.  1238 

istuc  curaui,  ut  opinione  illius  pulchrior  sis. 
Curaui  means  "provision  is  made  .     .     .     ,"  a  present  state 
demanding  the  primary  sequence. 

M.  G.  1269 

induxi  in  animum  ne  oderim  item  ut  alias,  quando  orasti. 

Induxi  in  animum  means  "my  mind  is  made  up,"  a  present 
state  demanding  the  primary  sequence.  Oderim,  being  a  preter- 
itive,  has  the  meaning  of  a  present. 

Most.  941  sq. 

nisi  forte  factu's  praefectus  nouos, 

qui  res  alienas  procures,  quaeras,  uideas,  audias. 

Factu's  ....  qui,  "are  prefect  to  .  .  .  ,"  is  a  present 
state  calling  for  the  primary  sequence. 

Pers.  325  sq. 

nam  iam  omnis  sycophantias  instruxi  et  comparaui 
quo  pacto  ab  lenone  auferam  hoc  argentum. 


10  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Instruxi  and  comparaui  mean  "I  have  a  plan  drawn  up  and 
prepared  .  .  .  ,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore  require  the 
primary  sequence.     lam  intensifies  the  present  state. 

Pers.  620  sq. 

qur  ego  hie  mirer,  mi  homo? 
seruitus  mea  mi  interdixit  ne  quid  mirer  meum  malum. 
Mi  interdixit,  "I  am  forbidden,"  a  present  state,  demands  the 
primary  sequence. 

Poen.  772  sqq. 

nunc  hunc  inimicum  quia  esse  sciuerunt  mihi, 
eum  adlegarunt  suom  qui  seruom  diceret 
cum  auro  esse  apud  me;  compositast  fallacia 
ut  eo  me  priuent  atque  inter  se  diuidant. 

Compositast  means  "is  arranged,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore 
demands  the  primary  sequence. 

Poen.  1018  sqq. 

palas  uendundas  sibi  ait  et  mergas  datas, 
ad  messim  credo,  nisi  quid  tu  aliud  sapis, 
ut  hortum /oc^ia/  atque  ut  frumentum  metat. 

Ait  datas  ....  means  "says  he  has,"  a  present  state, 
and  therefore  takes  the  primary  sequence. 

Pseud.  579  sqq. 

nam  ego  in  meo  pectore  prius  ita  paraui  copias, 
duplicis,  triplicis  dolos,  perfidias,  ut,  ubiquomque  hostibu' 

congrediar 
(maiorum  meum  fretus  uirtute  dicam,  mea  industria  et 

malitia  fraudulenta), 
facile  ut  uincam,  facile  ut  spoliem  meos  perduellis  meis 
perfidiis. 
Paraui     ....     perfidias  is  equivalent  to  "I  am  ready," 
which  is  a  present  state  and  demands  the  primary  sequence. 
See  on  M.  G.  295,  p.  8. 

Rud.  717 

non  hodie  isti  rei  auspicaui,  ut  cum  iurciiero  fahuler. 
Non     ....     auspicaui   ut  means   "I   am   not   prepared 
for,"  a  present  state  calling  for  the  primary  sequence. 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  ii 

Rud.  927 

fnunc  haec  tibi  occasio,  Gripe,  optigit  ut  liberes  ex  populo 
praeter  tef. 

The  principal  clause  means  "now  you  have  this  opportunity," 
which  is  a  present  state  and  demands  the  primary  sequence. 

Trin.  15 

dedi  ei  meam  gnatam  quicum  aetatem  exigat. 

Dedi  ei  is  equal  to  is  habet,  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes 
the  primary  sequence. 

True.  280 

ut  nacta  es  hominem  quem  pudeat  probri! 

Nancta  es  is  equivalent  to  "you  are  come  upon,"  a  present 
state,  and  thus  requires  the  primary  sequence. 
See  on  Capt.  837,  p.  6. 


The  following  examples  of  final  clauses  in  the  present  subjunctive  de- 
pendent upon  the  historical  perfect  are  found  in  the  Arguments: 
Capt.  Arg.  7  amittatur;  Cure.  Arg.  5  mittat;  True.  Arg.  3  tangat. 


(b)  Dependent  upon  cerium  est. 

In  this  section  are  given  a  few  forms  which  are  regarded  as 
dependent  on  certum  est.  Inasmuch  as  all  these  verbs  belong 
to  the  third  conjugation,  the  forms  here  used  may  be  future 
indicatives  or  present  subjunctives.  We  have  the  future  in- 
dicative in  Merc.  472  certumst,  ibo  ad  medicum  atque  ibi  me  toxica 
morti  dabo.  Morris  {A.  J.  P.  XVIII.  p.  145)  notes  that  the 
forms  treated  in  this  section  "are  not  quite  futures."  Durham 
{Subjunctive  Substantive  Clauses  in  Plautus,  Cornell  Studies  XIII. 
pp.  83-84)  refers  the  substantive  clauses  dependent  upon  certum 
est  to  the  subjunctive  of  determined  resolution. 

Inasmuch  as  the  phrase  certum  est  always  denotes  a  present 
state,  the  sequence  is  always  primary. 

The  examples  are: 

A  sin.  248 

nam  si  mutuas  non  potero,  certumst  sumam  faenore. 


12  The  Sequence  oj  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Aul.  676 

certumst,  Siluano  potius  credam  quam  Fide. 

Aul.  681 

certum  est,  malam  rem  potius  quaeram  cum  lucro. 

Bacch.  382 

certumst  iam  dicam  patri, 

Capt.  778  sq. 

nunc  certa  res  est,  eodem  pacto  ut  comici  serui  solent, 
coniciam  in  coUum  pallium, 

Cas.  448 

certum  est,  hunc  Accheruntem  praemittam  prius. 

Stick.  503  sq. 

certumst  amicos  conuocare,  ut  consulam 
qua  lege  nunc  med — essurire  oporteat. — 


(c)  Dependent  upon  the  perfect  of  mereo  and  its  compounds. 

The  jussive  origin  of  this  usage  seems  to  be  assured  by  the 
fact  that  we  have  the  negative  ne  in  Men.  1 100. 

These  words  sometimes  take  the  primary  sequence,  meaning 
"I  am  deserving  of,"  etc.,  and  at  other  times  they  take  the 
secondary  sequence,  thus  indicating  that  in  the  latter  instance 
the  speaker's  attention  is  fixed  upon  the  past  act.  The  examples 
of  secondary  sequence  are  here  given  for  purposes  of  comparison. 

The  passages  having  the  primary  sequence  are: 

Capt.  421  sq. 

pol  istic  me  hau  centessumam 
partem  laudat  quam  ipse  meritust  ut  laudetur  laudibus. 

Epid.  442  sq. 

uirtute  belli  armatus  promerui  ut  mihi 
omnis  mortalis  agere  deceat  gratias. 

Men.  1067 

non  edepol  ita  promeruisti  de  me  ut  pigeat  quae  uelis 
[opsequi]. 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  13 

Men.  1 1 00 

promeruisti  ut  ne  quid  ores  quod  uelis  quin  impetres. 

Pers.  496 

tuom  promeritumst  merito  ut  faciam. 

Poen.  1407  sq. 

quamquam  ego  te  meruisse  ut  pereas  scio, 

non  experiar  tecum. 
Although  meruisse  is  in  the  perfect,  it  means  "are  worthy  of," 
a  present  state,  and  thus  takes  the  primary  sequence. 

The  passages  having  the  secondary  sequence,  showing  thereby 
that  the  speaker's  attention  is  fixed  upon  the  past  act,  are  the 
following: 

Amph.  1 141  sq. 

tu  cum  Alcumena  uxore  antiquam  in  gratiam 
redi :  hau  promeruit  quam  ob  rem  uitio  uorteres; 

Aul.  222 

nam  de  te  neque  re  neque  uerbis  merui  uti  facer es  quod 
facis. 

Aul.  735  sq. 

quid  ego  <de  te>  demerui,  adulescens,  mali, 
quam  ob  rem  ita  facer  es  meque  meosque  perditum  ires 
liberos? 

For  demerui  Goetz  and  Schoell  read  commend. 

Epid.  712 

merui  ut  fierem. 

Men.  490 

quid  de  te  merui  qua  me  caussa  perderes? 

For  other  instances  of  the  secondary  sequence  dependent  on  forms 
of  merui,  cf.  Terence  And.  281;  Hec.  580. 


2.  In  indirect  questions. 

A  sin.  36 

modo  pol  percepi,  Libane,  quid  istuc  sit  loci: 


14  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Percept  is  equal  to  scio,  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes 
the  primary  sequence. 

Bacch.  575  sq. 

nunc  me  ire  iussit  ad  earn  et  percontarier 
utrum  aurum  reddat  anne  eat  secum  semul. 

Nunc     ....     iussit  means  "I   have  an  order     .     .     ," 
a  present  state  caUing  for  the  primary  sequence. 

Capt.  46  sqq. 

sed  inscientes  sua  sibi  fallacia 
ita  compararunt  et  confinxerunt  dolum 
itaque  hi  commenti  de  sua  sententia 
ut  in  seruitute  hie  ad  suom  maneat  patrem: 
Commenti  <sunt>  is  equivalent  to  "  they  have  this  plan  thought 
out,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes  the  primary  sequence. 
Goetz  and  Schoell,  and  Morris  following  them,  bracket  48, 
making  maneat  depend  on  47. 

Capt.  466  sqq. 

neque  ieiuniosiorem  neque  magis  ecfertum  fame 
uidi  nee  quoi  minu'  procedat  quidquid  facere  occeperit, 
ita[que]  uenter  gutturque  resident  essurialis  ferias. 
Vidi  is  equivalent  to  "I  know,"  a  present  state  calling  for 
the  primary  sequence. 

Cure.  371  sq. 

Beatus  uideor:  subduxi  ratiunculam, 
quantum  aeris  mihi  sit  quantumque  alieni  siet: 

Subduxi     ...     is  equivalent  to  "my  account  is  balanced," 
a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes  the  primary  sequence. 

Cure.  608 

dixi  equidem  tibi  unde  ad  me  hie  peruenerit. 
Dixi  equidem  tibi  is  the  equivalent  of  scis,  a  present  state, 
and  therefore  takes  the  primary  sequence. 
See  on  M.  G.  1097  sq.,  p.  15. 

Epid.  285 

et  repperi  haec  te  qui  apscedat  suspicio. 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  15 

Repperi  is  the  equivalent  of  scio,  and  thus  takes  the  primary 
sequence. 

Men.  755 

sed  id  quam  mihi  facile  sit  hau  sum  falsus. 
Hau  sum  falsus  is  equivalent  to  scio,  a  present  state,  and 
therefore  takes  the  primary  sequence. 

Merc.  253  sq. 

nisi  capram  illam  suspicor 
iam  me  inuenisse  quae  sit  aut  quid  uoluerit. 
The  principal  clause  means   "I   suspect   that   I   now  know 
.     .     .     ,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes  the  primary 
sequence. 

See  on  Capt.  569,  p.  17;  Epid.  355,  p.  7;  M.  G.  767,  p.  8. 

Merc.  344 

neque  is  quom  roget  quid  loquar  cogitatumst. 
Cogitatumst  is  equivalent  to  scio,  a  present  state,  and  demands 
the  primary  sequence. 

M.  G.  867 

modo  intellexi  quam  rem  mulier  gesserit. 
Intellexi  is  equivalent  to  scio,  a  present  state,  and  thus  takes 
the  primary  sequence. 

M.  G.  1097  sq. 

dixi  equidem  tibi 
quo  id  pacto  fieri  possit  clementissume. 
Dixi     ....     is  equivalent   to    "you   know,"   a   present 
state  calling  for  the  primary  sequence. 
See  on  Cure.  608,  p.  14. 

Pers.  81  sq. 

Omnem  rem  inueni,  ut  sua  sibi  pecunia 

hodie  illam  facial  leno  libertam  suam. 
Inueni  means  "I  know,"  and  therefore  takes  the  primary 
sequence. 

See  on  Epid.  355,  p.  7;  M.  G.  767,  p.  8. 


1 6  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Poen.  547 

scitis  rem,  narraui  uobis  quod  uostra  opera  mi  opu'  siet. 
Narraui  uobis  is  equivalent  to  scitis,  and  therefore  demands 
the  primary  sequence. 

Poen.  557  sqq. 

itane?  temptas  an  sciamus?  non  meminisse  nos  ratu's 
quo  modo  trecentos  Philippos  Collybisco  uilico 
dederis, 
Ratu's     ....     is  equivalent  to  "don't  you  believe  that 
we  remember  how     .     .     .     ,"  a  present  state,  and  thus  takes 
the  primary  sequence.     Ratu's  refers  to  the  same  time  as  temptas. 

Rud.  6ii  sq. 

nunc  quam  ad  rem  dicam  hoc  attinere  somnium 
numquam  hodie  quiui  ad  coniecturam  euadere. 
The  principal  clause  means  "I  am  come  to  no  conclusion," 
a  present  state  calling  for  the  primary  sequence. 

Rud.  924  sq. 

nam  ego  nunc  mihi,  qui  inpiger  fui, 

repperi  ut  piger  si  uelim  siem: 
Repperi  is  equivalent  to  scio,  and  therefore  takes  the  primary 
sequence. 

Rud.  1026 

mane,  iam  repperi  quo  pacto  nee  fur  nee  socius  sies. 

See  preceding  example  and  Epid.  285,  p.  14. 

True.  382  sq. 

sed  quod  ego  facinus  audiui  adueniens  tuom 
quod  tu  hie  me  apsente  noui  negoti  gesseris? 
Audiui  is  equivalent  to  scio,  a  present  state,  and  thus  takes 
the  primary  sequence. 

3.  In  relative  clauses  of  characteristic. 

Some  of  these  relative  clauses  in  addition  to  the  notion  of 
characteristic  also  contain  that  of  cause  or  of  opposition,  as  will 
be  noted  in  the  proper  places.     The  examples  are: 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  17 

Amph.  176  sqq. 

satiust  me  queri  illo  modo  seruitutem: 
hodie  qui  fuerim  liber,  eum  nunc 
potuit  pater  seruitutis: 
Potuit     ....     means  "has  put  into  the  power  of  slavery," 
a  present  state,  and  therefore  fuerim  in  a  relative  clause  of 
characteristic  with  the  accessory  notion  of  opposition,  is  in  a 
primary  tense. 

Asin.  85  sq. 

dotalem  seruom  Sauream  <huc>  uxor  tua 

adduxit,  quoi  plus  in  manu  sit  quam  tibi. 

Adduxit     ....     is  equivalent  to  "has  here     .     .     .     ." 

Libanus  wishes  to  call  attention  to  the  existing  state  of  affairs 

in  Demaenetus's  house,  due  to  the  former  conduct  of  the  old 

gentleman's  wife.     The  primary  sequence  is  therefore  required. 

Capt.  568  sqq. 

TY.  tu  enim  repertu's,  Philocratem  qui  superes  ueriuerbio. 

AR.  pol  ego  ut  rem  uideo,  tu  inuentu's,  uera  uanitudine 

qui  conuincas. 

Repertu's  and  inuentu's     ....     are  equivalent  to  "you 

are  known  to  be  one  who     .     .     .     ,"  denoting  a  present  state, 

and  therefore  they  take  the  primary  sequence. 

See  on  Epid.  355,  p.  7;  Merc.  254,  p.  8;  If.  G.  767,  p.  15. 

Epid.   80 

numquam    hominem    quemquam   conueni  unde  abierim 
lubentius. 
Numquam     ....     conueni  is  equivalent  to   "I   do  not 
know,"  a  present  state,  and  therefore  takes  the  primary  se- 
quence. 

Men.  473-4  sq. 

pro  di  inmortales!  quoi  homini  umquam  uno  die 
boni  dedistis  plus  qui  minu'  sperauerit? 
Quoi     ....     dedistis  is  equivalent  to  quis  habet     .     ,     . 
a  present  state,  and  therefore  sperauerit,  dependent  on  dedistis, 
in  a  clause  of  characteristic  with  the  added  notion  of  opposition, 
is  in  the  primary  sequence. 


1 8  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

4.  In  consecutive  clauses. 

The  subjunctive  in  consecutive  clauses  is  a  development  of 
the  subjunctive  of  contingent  futurity  (Bennett  Latin  Language 
§360,6)  where  some  condition  is  implied.  Thus  hie  liber  est 
talis  ut  quemvis  iuuet  originally  meant:  "this  book  is  of  such  a 
nature  as  anyone  you  please  would  like"  {i.  e.,  if  he  should  see 
it).  The  transition  then  was  readily  made  to  "this  book  is  of 
such  a  nature  that  anyone  you  please  likes  it."  The  subjunctive 
in  consecutive  clauses  thus  takes  the  place  of  the  indicative 
logically  expected  to  express  actuality.  Because  of  this  the 
tenses  in  these  clauses  are  used  with  their  indicative  values,  and 
to  this  extent  show  exceptions  to  sequence. 

The  examples  of  the  perfect  indicative  governing  consecutive 
clauses  with  the  primary  sequence  are: 

'Amph.  815 

quid  ego  feci  qua  istaec  propter  dicta  dicantur  mihi? 

Dicantur  denotes  a  result  continuing  into  the  present.  Feci 
is  an  aoristic  perfect,  and  the  primary  tense  dicantur  therefore 
violates  the  rule  of  sequence. 

Bacch.  605  sqq. 

et  tu,  integumentum,  uale. 
in  eum  [nunc]  haec  reuenit  res  locum,  ut  quid  consili 
dem  meo  sodali  super  arnica  nesciam, 

In  eum locum  denotes  a  present  state,  "affairs 

are  in  such  a  state."     The  sequence  of  nesciam  is  therefore 
regular. 

Capt.  410  sqq. 

nam  tua  opera  et  comitate  et  uirtute  et  sapientia 
fecisti  ut  redire  liceat  ad  parentes  denuo, 
quom  apud  hunc  confessus  es  et  genus  et  diuitias  meas: 
The    principal    clause    means    "the    arrangements    effected 
through  your     ....     are  such,"  which  is  a  present  state. 
The  primary  sequence  in  liceat  is  therefore  regular. 

Capt.  931  sqq. 

fecisti  ut  tibi, 
Philocrates,  numquam  referre  gratiam  possim  satis, 
proinde  ut  tu  promeritu's  de  me  et  filio. 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  19 

The  present  possim  denotes  a  result  continuing  into  the  present 
and  future.  Fecisti  is  an  aoristic  perfect,  and  the  primary 
tense  possim  thus  violates  the  rule  of  sequence. 

Cas.  252  sq. 

sed  quid  ais?  iam  domuisti  animum,  potius  ut  quod  uir 

uelit 
fieri  id  facias  quam  aduorsere  contra? 
Iam  domuisti  animum  means  "is  your  temper  by  this  time 
under  control,"  which  is  a  present  state.     The  primary  tense 
facias  is  therefore  regular. 

Cist.  10  sq. 

ita  in  prandio  nos  lepide  ac  nitide 
accepisti  apud  te,  ut  semper  meminerimus. 
The  perfect  meminerimus  denotes  a  result  continuing  into 
the  present  and  future.     Accepisti  is  an  aoristic  perfect,  and  the 
primary  tense  meminerimus  thus  violates  the  rule  of  sequence. 

Men.   712 

quid  tandem  admisi  in  me  ut  loqui  non  audeam? 

Audeam  denotes  a  result  continuing  into  the  present.  Admisi 
is  an  aoristic  perfect,  and  the  primary  tense  audeam  thus  violates 
the  rule  of  sequence. 

M.  G.  514  sq. 

ita  sum  coactus,  Periplectomene,  ut  nesciam 
utrum  me  <ex>postulare  priu'  tecum  aequiust — 
The  principal  clause  means  "I  am  in  such  straits,"  which  is 
a  present  state.  The  primary  sequence  is  therefore  required 
in  nesciam.  Goetz  and  Schoell  read  515  Vtrum  me  <ex> postulare 
tecum  aequom  siet.  The  different  reading,  however,  does  not 
affect  the  interpretation  of  the  sequence. 

Poen.  553  sq. 

scimus  rem  omnem,  quippe  omnes  simul 
dedicimus  tecum  una,  ut  respondere  possimus  tibi. 
Dedicimus  is  equivalent  to  "we  know,"  a  present  state,  and 
therefore  takes  the  primary  sequence. 


20  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Cf.  with  the  illustrations  in  the  preceding  section,  the  following  ex- 
amples of  the  present  subjunctive  dependent  upon  the  perfect  indica- 
tive and  expressing  a  result  continuing  into  the  present. 

Li\'y  III.  68.  10  natura  hoc  ita  comparatum  est,  ut  qui  apud  multi- 
tudinem  sua  causa  loquitur  gratior  eo  sit,  cuius  mens  nihil  praeter  pub- 
licum commodum  videt. 

Livy  X.  28.  12  datum  hoc  nostri  generi  est,  ut  luendis  periculis  pub- 
licis  piacula  simus: 

Tac.  Ann.  IV.  8.  8  ita  nati  estis,  ut  bona  malaque  vestra  ad  rem  pub- 
licam  pertineant. 

With  the  foregoing  examples  of  the  present  subjunctive  (or  of 
its  equivalent,  the  perfect,  in  the  case  of  preteritives)  denoting 
a  result  continuing  into  the  present,  we  ought  to  compare  the 
following  group  of  examples  of  the  imperfect  dependent  upon 
the  perfect  indicative,  and  denoting  a  result  exclusively  in  the 
present.  Since  we  expect  the  tenses  in  result  clauses  to  have 
their  indicative  values  (p.  18),  and  thus  to  form  an  exception  to 
the  principle  of  sequence,  we  should  have  expected  the  present 
and  not  the  imperfect  in  these  passages.  See  on  the  use  of 
tenses  in  result  clauses  Lane  Latin  Grammar'^  §1757  (2);  Gilder- 
sleeve-Lodge  Latin  Grammar  §513;  Allen  and  Greenough  New 
Latin  Grammar  §485  c;  Bennett  Latin  Grammar  §268,  6,  7. 

The  examples  listed  in  the  section  below  are  therefore  particu- 
larly significant  as  illustrations  of  mechanical  conformity  to 
the   principle   of   sequence. 

Bacch.  1067  sqq. 

curatum  est — esse  te  senem  miserrumum. 
hoc  est  incepta  efficere  pulchre:  ueluti  mi 
euenit  ut  ouans  praeda  onustus  cederem; 
Cederem,  as  is  seen  from  the  rest  of  Chrysalus'  speech,  denotes 
a  result  beginning  in  the  present.     We  should  therefore  have 
expected  cedam  instead.     The  imperfect  is  due  to  mechanical 
sequence. 

Cas.  47  sqq. 

postquam  ea  adoleuit  ad  eam  aetatem  ut  uiris 
placere  posset,  eam  puellam  hie  senex 
amat  ecflictim,  et  item  contra  filius. 
The  whole  context  of  the  passage  shows  that  posset  denotes 
a  result  beginning  in  the  present.     Mechanical  sequence  caused 
the  imperfect. 


Primary  Sequence  Dependent  Upon  the  Perfect  21 

Pers.  172  sq. 

nam  equidem  te  iam  sector  quintum  hunc  annum,  quom 

interea,  credo, 
oui'  si  in  ludum  iret,  potuisset  iam  fieri  ut  probe  litteras 
sciret. 
Sciret  in  a  substantive  clause  of  result  dependent  on  potuisset 
denotes  a  result  exclusively  present,  as  is  shown  by  iam  (173). 
The  sequence  is  mechanical. 

Pseud.  13 1 8  sq. 

hoc  ego  numquam  ratu'  sum 
fore  me  ut  tibi  fierem  supplex. 
The  begging  begins  at  the  time  of  speaking.     Hence  we  should 
have  expected  the  present  subjunctive.     The  sequence  of  fierem 
is  mechanical. 

Since  the  subjunctive  tenses  in  result  clauses  are  used  with  their  in- 
dicative values  (p.  18),  it  follows  that  the  perfect  subjunctive,  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  perfect  indicative,  is  both  primary  and  secondary.  Ex- 
amples of  its  use  as  a  primary  tense  are  naturally  rare.  When  used  as 
a  secondary  tense  it  represents  a  result  merely  as  a  fact  without  any 
reference  to  the  continuance  of  the  act.  When  the  writer  wishes  to  re- 
present the  result  as  continuous  he  uses  the  imperfect  subjunctive  de- 
pendent upon  secondary  tenses. 

The  examples  of  the  perfect  subjunctive  as  a  secondary  tense  in  result 
clauses  are: 

Amph.  431 

factumst  illud,  ut  ego  illic  uini  hirneam  ebiberim  meri. 

M.  G.  262  sqq. 

nam  ill'  non  potuit  quin  sermone  suo  aliquem  familiarium 

participauerit  de  arnica  eri,  sese  uidisse  earn 

hie  in  proxumo  osculantem  cum  alieno  adulescentulo. 

Pers.  55  sq. 

nam  numquam  quisquam  meorum  maiorum  fuit 
quin  parasitando  pauerint  uentris  suos: 

Pers.  582  sq. 

nam  generi  lenonio 
numquam  ullus  deu'  tam  benignus  fuit  qui  fuerit  propitius. 

Compare  with  the  four  preceding  examples  of  result  clauses  in  the  per- 
fect subjunctive  the  following  examples  of  the  same  usage  in  Caesar  De 
Bella  Gallico  (A.  T.  Walker:   The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Latin,  p.  40,  Law- 


22  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

rence,  Kansas,  1899):  II.  21.  5  defuerit;  III.  15.  4  pervenerit;  V.  15.  I 
ftierint  and  compulerint;  V.  54.  4  fuerit;  VII.  17.  3  caruerint.  This  last 
passage  is  particularly  interesting  for  the  reason  that  caruerint  is  coor- 
dinated with  siistentarejit,  the  former  stating  a  historical  fact,  the  latter 
representing  a  resulting  condition  that  continued  for  some  time,  namely, 
as  long  as  the  grain  was  scarce.  On  the  matter  of  shift  of  tenses  in 
result  clauses  dependent  upon  the  same  verb,  see  Gildersleeve-Lodge 
Latin  Grammar  §513,  Note  2;  Lane  Latin  Grammar'^  §1759- 

In  the  first  three  of  the  four  passages  on  page  20  the  perfect  indicative 
should  probably  be  considered  aoristic,  although  Gildersleeve-Lodge 
Latin  Grammar  §513,  Note  i,  say  that  "examples  "^of  the  use  of  the  aoristic 
perfect  subjunctive  after  an  aoristic  perfect  indicative >  are  not  found 
in  early  Latin." 


5.  In  conditional  clauses  of  comparison. 

True.  292  sq. 

itane?     erubuisti?     quasi  uero  corpori  reliqueris 
tuo  potestatem  coloris  ulli  capiendi,  mala! 
Erubuisti,  from  the' inceptive  erubesco,  means  "you  are  red," 
a  present  state,  and  therefore  the  primary  sequence  is  required 
in  reliqueris  in  the  conditional  clause  of  comparison. 


Ill 

Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle 
I.  Repraesentatio. 

As  might  be  expected  from  the  colloquial  character  of  Plautus, 
this  figure,  which  involves  the  retention  of  a  primary  tense  where 
the  sequence  called  for  a  secondary,  is  fairly  common.  We 
find  different  varieties  of  the  figure,  as  noted  in  the  discussions 
on  the  examples  below. 

Atnph.  72  sqq. 

siue  adeo  aediles  perfidiose  quoi  duint, 

sirempse  legem  iussit  esse  luppiter, 

quasi  magistratum  sibi  alteriue  amhiuerit. 

In  the  forms  duint  and  amhiuerit  we  have  repraesentatio.  The 
use  of  this  figure  in  this  sentence  enables  the  speaker  to  preserve 
the  true  character  of  the  conditions. 

Amph.  115 

sed  ita  adsimulauit  se,  quasi  Amphitruo  siet. 

Here,  again,  as  in  the  preceding  example,  the  use  of  reprae- 
sentatio in  siet  enables  the  speaker  to  preserve  the  character  of 
the  condition. 

Amph.  205  sqq. 

eos  legat,  Telobois  iubet  sententiam  ut  dicant  suam: 
si  sine  ui  sine  bello  uelint  rapta  et  raptores  tradere, 
si  quae  asportassent  reddere,  se  exercitum  extemplo  domum 
redducturum,  abituros  agro  Argiuos,  pacem  atque  otium 
dare  illis ;  sin  aliter  sient  animati  neque  dent  quae  petat, 
seseigitursummauiuirisque  eorumoppidum  oppugnassere. 

Iubet  is  an  historical  present.  We  have  repraesentatio  in  dicant, 
uelint,  sient,  dent,  and  petat.  The  secondary  tense  asportassent 
shows  that  in  207  the  speaker  gives  iuhet  its  true  value.  In 
sient,  dent,  and  petat  he  passes  back  into  the  former  manner  of 
expression. 

23 


24  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Amph.  225  sq. 

conuenit,  uicti  utri  sint  eo  proelio, 
urbem,  agrum,  aras,  focos  seque  uti  dederent. 
Exeunt  and  conloquontur  (223,  224)  show  that  conuenit  is 
historical  present.  The  primary  tense  uicti  sint  is  an  instance 
of  repraesentatio.  This  is  another  passage  in  which  the  historical 
present  is  viewed  first  as  a  primary  tense,  then  as  a  secondary, 
as  is  shown  by  the  imperfect  subjunctive  dederent. 

Amph.  486  sqq. 

sed  Alcumenai  huius  honoris  gratia 
pater  curauit  uno  ut  fetu  fieret, 
uno  ut  labore  apsoluat  aerumnas  duas 
et  ne  in  suspicione  ponatur  stupri 
et  clandestina  ut  celetur  consuetio. 
Apsoluat,  ponatur,  and  celetur  depend  on  fieret.     The  rule  of 
sequence  therefore  called  for  the  imperfect  subjunctive  in  these 
forms.     The  presents  are  due  to  repraesentatio.     Curauit  denotes 
a  present  state,  for  the  sense  of  the  principal  clause  is  "there  is 
this  provision     .     .     .     ."     Instead  of  j^^re/ we  should  therefore 
have  expected  fiat.     The  sequence  of  fieret  is  mechanical. 
Goetz  and  Schoell  read: 

Sed  Alcumenae  honoris  huius  gratia 
Pater  curabit  uno  ut  fetu  proferat 
******* 

Vno  ut  labore  absoluat  aerumnas  duas, 
Et  ne  in  suspicione  ponatur  stupri 
Et  clandestina  ut  celetur  consuetio. 
This  reading  makes  absoluat,  ponatur,  and  celetur  depend  on  the 
primary  proferat,  and  thus  makes  the  sequence  regular. 

The  historical  present  is  somewhat  more  commonly  treated  as  primary, 
but  in  the  following  passages  it  is  conceived  according  to  its  sense,  that 
is,  as  a  past,  and  therefore  takes  the  secondary  sequence. 

Amph.  207  asportassent  dependent  on  uelint  reddere,  206, 


Amph.  215  deducerent 
Amph.  226  dederent 
Aul.  319  liceret 
Bacch.  291  gereretur 
Bacch.  302  sciscerent 
Cas.  891  opprimeret 


respondent,  21^, 
conuenit,  225, 
infit,  318, 
sentio,  290, 
auferimus,  301, 
cupio,  891, 


Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle  25 

(editors  read  variously) 
Merc,  giforet  dependent  on  mittit,  90, 

M.C.  Arg.  II.  5  nuntiaret         "  "  navigat,  5, 

M.G.Arg.U.  7  veniret  "  "  scribit,  7, 

Pers.  Arg.  3  emeret  "  "  suadet,  4, 

(Goetz  and  Schoell  have  emere) 
Pers.  $2)^  facer  em  dependent  on  facto,  537, 
Rud.  602  darem  "  "  uidetur,  601, 

Trin.  14  aleret  "  "  uideo,  14. 

In  Stick.  366  sq. 
dum  percontor  portitores,  ecquae  nauis  uenerit  ex  Asia,  negant  uenisse, 
the  historical  present  indicative  takes  the  perfect  subjunctive  as  a  pri- 
mary tense. 

Amph.  745  sq. 

quipp'  qui  ex  te  audiui,  ut  urbem  maxumam 
expugnauisses  regemque  Pterelam  tute  occideris. 

As  is  seen  from  203-247,  412-415,  the  storming  of  the  city 
preceded  the  slaying  of  king  Pterela.  Occidisses  would  naturally 
mean  that  the  storming  and  the  killing  had  been  synchronous. 
Occideris  is  an  instance  of  repraesentatio  used  of  necessity.  What 
the  speaker  wishes  to  indicate  is  that  the  act  of  occideris  was 
anterior  to  audiui  but  later  than  oppugnauisses. 

Cf.  with  this  example  Professor  R.  G.  Kent's  comment  {The 
Classical  Weekly  7.  77)  on  Caesar  B.  G.  I.  40.  7  Denique  hos 
esse  eosdem  quibuscum  saepe  numero  Helvetii  congressi  non 
solum  in  suis,  sed  etiam  in  illorum  finibus  plerummque 
superassent,  qui  tamen  pares  esse  nostro  exercitui  non  potuerint. 

Amph.  1 122  sq. 

is  se  dixit  cum  Alcumena  clam  consuetum  cubitibus, 
eumque  filium  suom  esse  qui  illas  anguis  uicerit; 
Dixit  is  historical  perfect.     We  should  therefore  have  expected 
uicisset  by  the  regular  rule  of  sequence.      Vicerit  is  an  example 
of  repraesentatio. 

A  sin.  442  sq. 

aibat  reddere  quom  extemplo  redditum  esset; 
nam  retineri,  ut  quod  sit  sibi  operis  locatum  ecficeret. 
Quod     ....     locatum  depends  on  the  secondary  ecficeret. 
The  sequence  rule  therefore  calls  for  esset  locatum.     The  perfect 
sit  locatum  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 


26  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

AuL  550 

pol  ego  te  ut  accusem  merito  meditabar. 

Inasmuch  as  accusem  precedes  meditabar,  its  tense  was  prob- 
ably determined  in  the  speaker's  mind  before  that  of  the  principal 
verb.  On  the  other  hand  the  force  of  meditabar  may  readily 
extend  into  the  present.  We  find  passages  where  the  transition 
from  parataxis  to  hypotaxis  is  going  on,  and  under  such  con- 
ditions often  the  tense  of  the  subjunctive  verb  in  the  independent 
stage  is  responsible  for  exceptions  in  the  sequence.  The  position 
of  the  subjunctive  clause  with  respect  to  the  principal  clause  is  a 
factor  to  be  reckoned  with  in  sentences  of  this  type  where  there 
are  violations  in  the  sequence.  Furthermore  the  connection 
between  the  dependent  and  the  independent  clause  is  occasionally 
very  loose  and  thus  results  in  irregularities  in  the  sequence. 
Compare,  for  example,  Terence  Phor.  933  sq.: 

ut  filius 
cum  ilia  habitet  apud  te:  hoc  nostrum  consilium  fuit. 
Here,  inasmuch  as  the  purpose  clause  precedes  the  principal 
clause,  we  probably  have  a  mild  instance  of  anacoluthon. 

Accusem  may  be  plain  repraesentatio,  but  it  is  possible  that 
its  tense  is  due  to  one  of  the  other  factors  mentioned. 

Cf.  Ennius  Ann.  I.  86  sq.  (Vahlen") 

sic  exspectabat  populus,  atque  ora  tenebat 
rebus,  utri  magni  victoria  sit  data  regni. 

Repraesentatio  caused  the  primary  tense  sit  data. 

Bacch.  287 

occepi  ego  opseruare  eos  quam  rem  gerant. 
Occepi   opseruare   called   for    the   secondary   sequence.     The 
primary  gerant  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Bacch.  351  sqq. 

ut  amantem  erilem  copem  facerem  filium, 
ita  feci  ut  auri  quantum  uellet  sumeret, 
quantum  autem  lubeat  reddere  ut  reddat  patri. 

The  rule  of  sequence  called  for  the  secondary  redderet  instead 
of  reddat.     The  primary  tense  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

See  p.  5. 


Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle  27 

Bacch.  589  sqq, 

me  misit  miles  ad  eam  Cleomachus, 
uel  ut  ducentos  Philippos  reddat  aureos 
uel  ut  hinc  in  Elatiam  hodie  eat  secum  semul. 
We  should  have  expected  redderet  and  iret  in  the  purpose 
clauses  dependent  on  misit.     The  presents  are  due  to  repraesen- 
tatio. 

Bacch.  689  sq. 

MN.     ego  patrem  exoraui.     CH.     nempe  ergo   hoc  ut 

faceret  quod  loquor? 
MN.    immo  tibi  ne  noceat  neu  quid  ob  eam  rem  suscenseat; 
Noceat  and  suscenseat  depend  on  exoraui.     The  rule  of  sequence 
called   for   the  imperfect  subjunctive  instead   of   the   present. 
The  present  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Capt.  27  sqq. 

coepit  captiuos  commercari  hie  Aleos, 

si  quem  reperire  posset  qui  mutet  suom, 

ilium  captiuom : 
The  rule  of  sequence  called  for  the  secondary  mutaret  depen- 
dent upon  posset.     The  present  mutet  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Capt.  1002  sqq. 

quasi  patriciis  pueris  aut  monerulae 
aut  anites  aut  coturnices  dantur,  quicum  lusitent 
itidem  haec  mihi  aduenienti  upupa  qui  me  delectem  datast. 
The  act  of  delectem  is  fully  past  at  the  time  these  verses  are 
spoken.     The  rule  of  sequence  therefore  called  for  delectarem. 
The  present  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Cas.  680  sqq. 

id  hue 
missa  sum  tibi  ut  dicerem, 
ab  ea  uti  caueas  tibi. 
Missa  sum  means  "I  am  here,"  a  present  state,  and  the  sec- 
ondary dicerem  is  therefore  due  to  a  mechanical  adherence  to  the 
principle  of  sequence.     Caueas  dependent  on  dicerem  violates 
the  rule  of  sequence.     In  relation  to  the  time  of  speaking,  caueas 


28  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

represents  a  future  idea,  and  dicerem  a  present  idea.  The  rule 
of  sequence  of  tenses  would  throw  both  these  verbs  into  the 
imperfect  subjunctive;  but  by  the  use  of  repraesentatio  in  caueas, 
the  time  distinction  is  preserved. 

B^  however,  has  dicam  instead  of  dicerem. 

Caueas  may  be  due  to  parataxis,  but  this  seems  less  likely 
than  the  explanation  given. 

Cist.  1 68  sq. 

ill'  clam  opseruauit  seruos  <qui  eam  proiecerat> 
quo  aut  quas  in  aedis  haec  puellam  deferat. 

The  act  of  deferat  is  completely  past  at  the  time  these  verses 
are  spoken.  The  sequence  called  for  deferret.  The  present  is 
due  to  repraesentatio.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  and  the  follow- 
ing example,  together  with  M.  G.  131  deferat,  violate  the  theory 
of  non-sequence. 

Cist.  565  sqq. 

immo  meretrix  fuit;  sed  ut  sit,  de  ea  re  eloquar. 
iam  perducebam  illam  ad  me  suadela  mea: 
anus  ei  amplexa  est  genua  plorans,  opsecrans 
ne  deserat  se: 

The  act  of  deserat  is  fully  past  at  the  time  of  speaking.  The 
rule  of  sequence  therefore  called  for  the  imperfect  subjunctive 
instead  of  the  present.     The  present  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Cure.  558  sqq. 

postquam  rem  diuinam  feci,  uenit  in  mentem  mihi, 
ne  trapezita  exulatum  ahierit,  argentum  ut  petam, 
ut  ego  potius  comedim  quam  ille. 

The  acts  of  the  dependent  subjunctives  in  this  passage  are 
fully  past  at  the  time  of  speaking.  The  rule  of  sequence  there- 
fore called  for  the  secondary  tenses.  The  primary  tenses  are 
due  to  repraesentatio. 

Epid.  414  sqq. 

te  pro  filio 
facturum  dixit  rem  esse  diuinam  domij 
quia  Thebis  saluos  redierit. 


Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle  29 

The  act  of  redierit  is  fully  past  at  the  time  of  speaking.  Hence 
the  rule  of  sequence  called  for  redisset.  The  primary  tense 
redierit  is  due  to  repraesentatio.  This  example  illustrates  the 
commonest  form  of  repraesentatio — that  in  subordinate  clauses 
in  indirect  discourse.  Cf.  Amph.  72  sqq.,  p.  23;  Amph.  209,  p. 
23;  Amph.  1 123,  p.  25;  Asin.  443,  p.  25;  Merc.  419,  p.  29;  Most. 
1 124,  p.  30;  Pseud.  597,  p.  30. 

Men.  453  sq. 

non  ad  earn  rem  otiosos  homines  decuit  deligi, 
qui  nisi  adsint  quom  citentur,  census  capiat  ilico? 
The  text  of  these  lines  is  bad.     If  we  accept  the  reading  here 
given,  the  act  of  capiat  is  past  at  the  time  of  speaking.     The  rule 
of  sequence  called  for  the  imperfect  subjunctive  instead.     The 
present  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Men.  1056  sq. 

quom  argentum  dixi  me  petere  et  uasa,  tu  quantum  potest 

praecucurristi  obuiam,  ut  quae  fecisti  infitias  eas. 

By  the  rule  of  sequence  we  ought  to  have  ires  instead  of  eas. 

The  present  subjunctive  is  due  to  repraesentatio.     H.  N.  Fowler 

(edition  of  Men.,  p.  173)  notes  that  Brix  thought  that  metrical 

reasons  caused  the  substitution  of  eas  for  ires. 

Merc.  419 

dixit  se  redhibere  si  non  placeat. 

The  act  of  placeat  is  completely  past  at  the  time  of  speaking 
The  rule  of  sequence  called  for  placeret.  The  present  is  due  to 
repraesentatio. 

M.  G.  129  sqq. 

ego  quoniam  inspexi  mulieris  sententiam, 
cepi  tabellas,  consignaui,  clanculum 
dedi  mercatori  quoidam  qui  ad  ilium  deferat 
meum  erum,  qui  Athenis  fuerat,  qui  hanc  amauerat, 
ut  is  hue  ueniret. 
Dedi  is  an  aoristic  perfect.     We  should  therefore  by  the  rule 
of  sequence  have  had  deferret  instead  of  deferat.     The  present 
subjunctive  is  due  to  repraesentatio.     Veniret  has  the  sequence 


30  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

we  expect.     Deferat  violates  the  non-sequence  rule,  which  would 
call  for  deferret. 

Cf.  Cist.  169  deferat,  p.  28;  Cist.  568  deserat,  p.  28. 

M.  G.  962  sq. 

uah !  egone  ut  ad  te  ab  libertina  esse  auderem  internuntius, 
qui  ingenuis  sati'  responsare  nequeas  quae  cupiunt  tui? 
Nequeas  dependent  on  auderem  violates  the  rule  of  sequence. 
The  present  subjunctive  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Most.  1 122  sqq. 

Vbi  somno  sepeliui  omnem  atque  obdormiui  crapulam, 

Philolaches  uenisse  <dixit>  mihi  suom  peregrehuc  patrem 

quoque  modo  hominem  ad<uenientem>  seruos  ludificatu' 

sit, 

ait  se  metuere  in  conspec<tum  sui  patris  pr>ocedere. 

The  rule  of  sequence  called  for  ludificatus  esset.     The  primary 
tense  ludificatu'  sit  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

However,  the  text  of  this  passage  is  very  bad. 

Poen.  600  sqq. 

scilicet, 
et  quidem  quasi  tu  nobiscum  adueniens  hodie  oraueris 
liberum  ut  commostraremus  tibi  locum  et  uoluptarium 
ubi  ames,  potes,  pergraecere. 
Ames,   potes,   and   pergraecere  dependent   on   the    secondary 
commostraremus  violate  the  rule  of  sequence  which  called  for 
the   imperfect   subjunctive   in   this   clause.     The   present   sub- 
junctives are  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Poen.  1056  sq. 

qui  potuit  fieri  uti  Carthagini 
gnatus  sis? 
Potuit  fieri  is  an  aoristic  perfect.     The  rule  of  sequence  there- 
fore called  for  gnatus  esset  instead  of  gnatus  sis.     The  primary 
tense  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Pseud.  596  sq. 

ut  ego  oculis  rationem  capio  quam  mi  ita  dixit  eru'  meu' 

miles, 
septumas  esse  aedis  a  porta  ubi  ille  habitet  leno  .     .     . 


Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle  31 

Dixit  is  an  aoristic  perfect.  The  rule  of  sequence  therefore 
called  for  hahitaret  instead  of  habitet.  The  present  subjunctive 
is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Pseud.   795  sq. 

quin  ob  earn  rem  Orcus  recipere  ad  se  hunc  noluit, 
ut  esset  hie  qui  mortuis  cenam  coquat; 

Coquat  dependent  on  the  secondary  tense  esset  violates  the 
rule  of  sequence,  which  called  for  the  imperfect  subjunctive  in 
both  verbs.     The  present  subjunctive  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 

Rud.  124  sqq. 

PL,     die  quod  te  rogo, 
ecquem  tu  hie  hominem  crispum,  incanum  uideris, 
malum,  peiiurum,  palpatorem — DA.     plurumos, 
nam  ego  propter  eiusmodi  uiros  uiuo  miser. 
PL.     hie  dico,  in  fanum  Veneris  qui  mulierculas 
duas  secum  adduxit,  quique  adornaret  sibi 
ut  rem  diuinam /aaa/,  aut  hodie  aut  heri. 

Faciat  dependent  on  the  secondary  tense  adornaret  violates 
the  rule  of  sequence,  which  called  for  the  imperfect  subjunctive 
in  both  verbs.  The  present  faciat  is  due  to  repraesentatio. 
Adornaret  depends  on  ecquem  tu  uideris  implied  from  125.  The 
secondary  sequence  is  required  in  this  clause  even  though  it 
depends  on  uideris  which  in  turn  depends  on  the  primary  tense 
dico,  for  uideris  refers  to  the  past.  Peculiar,  however,  is  the 
use  of  the  subjunctive  adornaret  side  by  side  with  the  indicative 
adduxit. 

Rud.  408  sqq. 

ut  lepide,  ut  liberaliter,  ut  honeste  atque  hau  grauate 

timidas,  egentis,  uuidas,  eiectas,  exanimatas 

accepit  ad  sese,  hau  secus  quam  si  ex  se  simus  natae! 

In  this  sentence  the  use  of  repraesentatio  enables  the  speaker 
to  preserve  the  character  of  the  conditional  clause  of  comparison. 
Adherence  to  the  sequence  rule  would  have  resulted  in  essemus 
natae,  which  would  have  been  identical  with  the  tense  of  the 
contrary  to  fact  condition. 


32  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

2.  Violations  caused  by  other  factors. 

Cure.  225  sqq. 

paues  parasitus  quia  non  rediit  Caria: 
adferre  argentum  credo;  nam  si  non  fer at, 
tormento  non  retineri  potuit  ferreo 
quin  reciperet  se  hue  essum  ad  praesepem  suam. 
Ferat  stands  in  a  future  less  vivid  condition  dependent  on 
potuit.     The  perfect  indicative  potuit  is  irregular,  because  the 
verb  really  refers  to  the  future.     We  find  the  perfect  subjunctive 
occasionally  in   the  apodosis  of  future  less  vivid  conditional 
sentences,   to  emphasize  the  certainty  of  the  conclusion.     So 
Cas.  424  sqq.     Because  potuit  is  a  verb  of  possibility,  the  indica- 
tive here  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it  is  the  regular 
mood  used  with  such  verbs  in  the  apodosis  of  unreal  conditions. 
The  speaker's  mind  may  be  shifting  between  these  two  types 
of    conditions.     See   Gildersleeve-Lodge  Latin   Grammar   §597, 
Rem.  3  (a).     It  may  well  be  that  the  irregularity  in  the  sequence 
oi  ferat  is  due  to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  the  conditional  clause 
was  spoken  the  speaker  had  not  yet  formulated  in  his  mind 
the  verb  of  the  conclusion.     If  this  was  the  case,  we  have  here 
a  slight  anacoluthon. 

Amph.  815  dicantur 
See  p.  18. 

Capt.  932  possim 
See  p.  18. 

Cist.  II  meminerimus 
See  p.  19. 

Men.  712  audeam 
See  p.  19. 

Rud.  217  sq. 

leibera  ego  prognata  fui  maxume,  nequiquam  fui. 

nunc  qui  minu'  seruio  quasi  serua  forem  nata? 
V.  217  shows  that  the  speaker  has  the  notion  of  contrary  to 
fact  in  mind.     The  use  of  the  sequent  form  would  have  obscured 


Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle  33 

what  she  meant  to  say.     The  violation  of  sequence  is  due  to  the 
limited  power  of  the  tenses. 

Trin.  991  sq, 

immo,  saluos  quandoquidem  aduenis — 
di  te  perdant,  si  te  flocci  facio  an  periisses  prius. 
We  should  have  expected  Sy.  to  say  di  te  perdant,  si  te  flocci 
facerem  an  periisses  prius,  but  for  vividness  facio  is  substituted 
for  facerem.  What  the  speaker  wishes  to  say  is  not  .  .  . 
"if  I  should  care  a  straw  whether  you  had  been  hanged  before" 
(yougot  here),  but  .  .  .  "if  I  do  care  .  .  ."  We  cannot 
be  absolutely  certain  as  to  the  exact  order  in  which  the  clauses 
of  this  sentence  were  formulated  in  the  speaker's  mind.  The 
sentence  may  be  regarded  as  wavering  between  parataxis  and 
full  hypotaxis,  the  order  of  thought  being  "would  that  you  had 
been  hanged  before,  I'll  be  hanged  if  I  care  a  straw  whether 
this  had  happened  to  you."  The  intensity  of  the  thought 
would  naturally  tend  to  check  the  hypotactic  process.  Compare 
with  this  passage  Cic.  ad  .4/^.  VIII.  6.  4  moriar,  si  magis  gauderem, 
si  id  mihi  accidisset,  where  the  thought  runs  "I  would  not 
(now)  more  rejoice,  if  this  had  happened  to  me,  upon  my  life  I 
wouldn't."  Cicero  had  to  retain  the  secondary  gauderem  and 
accidisset  in  violation  of  the  sequence  principle,  for  had  he  made 
these  verbs  conform  to  sequence  and  written  gaudeam  and  acci- 
derit  the  contrary  to  fact  notion  would  have  been  sacrificed  and 
that  of  future  less  vivid  come  in  to  take  its  place.  But  that 
would  have  meant  something  quite  different  from  what  was  in 
his  mind.  The  non-sequence  was  necessary.  If  the  sentence 
be  regarded  as  fully  hypotactic,  we  may  explain  the  tense  of 
periisses  as  being  due  to  the  fact  that  its  association  with  the 
more  common  imperfect  in  this  type  of  sentence,  caused  the 
speaker  to  disregard  the  fact  that  here  he  was  making  it  depend 
on  the  present  facio. 

Cf.  Horace  Serm.  I.  9.  45  sqq. 

haberes 
magnum  adiutorem,  posset  qui  ferre  secundas, 
hunc  hominem  velles  si  tradere;  dispeream,  ni 
summosses  omnes. 


IV 

Apparent  Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle 
I.  In  connection  with  the  phrase  quod  sciam. 

The  phrase  quod  sciam,  "as  far  as  I  know,"  is  found  several 
times  in  connection  with  the  perfect  tense,  seemingly  in  violation 
of  the  principle  of  sequence.  This,  however,  is  a  stereotyped 
expression  and  sciam  does  not  depend  on  the  perfect  with  which 
it  stands  but  on  est  to  be  supplied  in  thought.  Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  first  illustration  below,  the  full  thought  is  "indeed 
it  never  happened  in  my  presence,  {lit.)  so  far  as  is  that  which  I 
know  {quoad  id  est  quod  sciam),  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes." 
Sciam  thus  stands  in  a  relative  clause  of  characteristic  dependent 
on  an  implied  est,  and  the  sequence  really  is  not  violated. 

The  construction  is  found  in: 

Amph.  749 

mequidem  praesente  numquam  factumst,  quod  sciam. 

Capt.   172  sq. 

sed  num  quo  foras  ^ 

uocatus  <es>  ad  cenam?     HE.     nusquam,  quod  sciam. 

Epid.  638 

EP.    non  me  nouisti?     TE.  quod  quidem  nunc  ueniat  in 
mentem  mihi. 
Veniat     ....     mihi  is  equivalent  to  sciam. 

Men.  500  sq. 

non  edepol  ego  te  quod  sciam  umquam  ante  hunc  diem 
uidi  neque  gnoui; 

True.  199 

nam  equidem  illi  uterum,  quod  sciam,  numquam  extumere 
sensi. 

In  clauses  dependent  on  noui  Plautus  always  uses  the  primary  sequence. 
The  following  are  the  examples. 

34 


Apparent  Violations  of  the  Sequence  Principle  35 

M.  G.  451  sq. 

ego  istam  domum 
neque  moror  neque  uos  qui  homines  sitis  noui  neque  scio. 

M.  G.  924  sq. 

numquam  uidit: 
qui  nouerit  me  quis  ego  sim^ 

Most.  969 

scio  qua  me  eire  oportet  et  quo  uenerim  noui  locum. 

Trin.  283 

noui  ego  hoc  saeculum  moribus  quibu',  siet: 


2.  Other  apparent  violations. 

A  sin.  7  sciretis 
See  p.  40. 

Merc.  633 

EV.  quid  ego  facerem?     CH.  quid  tu  faceres?  men  rogas? 

Faceres  is  a  past  deliberative  retained  in  its  paratactic  form 
and  not  subordinated  to  rogas.  Inasmuch  as  faceres  precedes 
rogas  it  seems  better  to  explain  the  passage  on  the  basis  of 
parataxis  than  on  that  of  hypotaxis.  Professor  W.  G.  Hale 
(v4.  /.  P.  VIII.  61,  footnote)  mentions  this  form  as  "an  exception 
to  the  Law  of  Sequence."  However,  even  if  the  subjunctive 
clause  follows  the  indicative,  it  is  not  safe  to  assume  in  sentences 
of  this  type  that  the  hypotaxis  is  complete.  Cf.  Cic.  In  Vatin. 
2.  5  sed  quaero  a  te  cur  C.  Cornelium  non  defenderem.  In  this 
sentence  it  seems  better  to  understand  the  order  of  thought 
to  be  "but,  I  ask  you,  why  was  I  not  to  defend  Gains  Cornelius?" 

Most.   157  sq. 

lam  pridem  ecastor  frigida  non  laui  magi'  lubenter 
nee  quom  me  melius,  mea  Scapha,  rear  esse  deficatam. 
There  is  a  mild  anacoluthon  here.  Verse  158  continues  as  if 
numquam  fuit  quom  lauerim  had  gone  before.  Rear  is  logically 
parenthetical.  The  sentence  may  have  begun  in  the  form: 
nee  fuit  (or  laui)  quom,  ut  reor,  melius  deficata  essem.  Or  instead 
of  reor  the  parenthetical  verb  may  have  been  rear,  a  so-called 
deliberative  subjunctive.     Then  too,  instead  of  essem  the  form 


36  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

may  have  been  fuerim,  as  we  see  by  comparing  Terence  Haul. 
1025.  If  the  parenthetical  verb  was  in  the  indicative,  it  was 
thrown  into  the  subjunctive  upon  being  subordinated  to  the 
impUed  fuU  (or  laui) ,  because  the  quom-clause  denotes  character- 
istic. Cf.  qtiod  sciam,  p.  34.  The  present  subjunctive  was 
required  in  the  gwow-clause  because  either /m^/  or  laui  here  denotes 
time  extending  into  the  present.  Most.  89  arbitrarer,  which  is 
in  origin  the  same  kind  of  subjunctive,  depends  on  cogitaui  and 
follows  sequence. 

Most.    1004  sq. 

promisi  foras, 
ad  cenam  ne  me  te  uocare  censeas. 
Censeas  is  not  in  subordination  to  promisi,  but  is  a  separate 
sentence  in  the  process  of  becoming  a  parenthetical  clause  of 
purpose. 

Pers.    116   sqq. 

iam  heri  narraui  tibi 
tecumque  oraui  ut  nummos  sescentos  mihi 
dares  utendos  mutuos.     SAT.  memini  et  scio 
et  te  me  orare  et  mihi  non  esse  quod  darem. 
As  is  seen  from  heri  (116),  orare  and  esse  are  historical  presents 
and  govern  the  secondary  sequence. 

Rud.  379 

si  amabat,  rogas,  quid  faceret? 
See  note  on  Merc.  633,  p.  35. 

Stich.  255  dares 
See  p.  43. 

True.  292  reliqueris 
See  p.  22. 


V 

Instances  of  Mechanical  Conformity  to   the  Sequence 

Principle 

In  this  chapter  are  treated  the  dependent  subjunctives  which 
follow  the  rules  of  sequence  in  disregard  of  the  claims  of  absolute 
time. 

The  first  group  contains  the  forms  dependent  upon  a  secondary 
tense  and  denoting  time  present  or  future  relatively  to  that  of 
speaking,  but  thrown  into  the  secondary  sequence  because  they 
are  dependent  upon  a  secondary  tense  which  denotes  present 
time  (e.  g.,  Asin.  589),  or  else  they  are  by  accessory  circumstances 
thrown  into  dependence  upon  a  secondary  tense  {e.  g.,  Most. 
183). 

Asin.   588   sqq, 

LE.     attatae,  modo  hercle  in  mentem  uenit, 

nimi'  uellem  habere  perticam.     LI.     quoi  rei?     LE.     qui 

uerberarem 
asinos,  si  forte  occeperint  clamare  hinc  ex  crumina. 
Vellem  is  a  potential  subjunctive  referring  to  the   present. 
Verberarem  in  a  purpose  clause  depending  on  uellem  therefore 
denotes  future  time.     In  spite  of  this  fact  uerberarem  is  secondary. 
The  sequence  is  therefore  mechanical. 

Asin.  674  sq. 

nimi'  bella  es  atque  amabilis,  et  si  hoc  meum  esset,  hodie 

numquam  me  orares  quin  darem: 

Orares  in  a  contrary  to  fact  conclusion  denotes  present  time, 

and  darem  in  the  substantive  clause  dependent  on  orares  must 

refer  to  time  future  to  orares.     If  the  dependent  subjunctive 

had  independent  tense  value,  we  should  have  dem  and  not  darem. 

Bacch.  553  sqq. 

PI.     opsecro  hercle  loquere,  quis  is  est.     MN.     beneuo- 

lens  uiuit  tibi. 
nam  ni  ita  esset,  tecum  orarem  ut  ei  quod  posses  mali 
isicexe  faceres . 

37 


38  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

Orarem  is  the  condition  of  a  present  contrary  to  fact  conditional 
sentence.  Inasmuch  as  faceres  stands  in  a  volitive  clause 
dependent  on  orarem,  it  denotes  time  future  to  that  at  which 
Mnesilochus  speaks.  Facias  would  have  been  required  if  the 
dependent  subjunctives  expressed  time  independently  of  the 
leading  verb. 

Bacch.  1069  cederem 
See  p.  20. 

Cas.  48  posset 
See  p.  20. 

Most.  182  sq. 

SC.     ita  tu  me  ames,  ita  Philolaches  tuo'  te  amet,  ut 

uenusta  es. 
PHILOL.     quid  ais,  scelesta?     quo  modo  adiurasti?     ita 
ego  istam  amarem? 
Ita   ....   amarem,   which   is   the   reported   form   of  ita 
Philolaches  tuos  te  amet,  a  wish  for  something  in  the  future,  is 
thrown  into  the  secondary  sequence,  because  it  is  made  to  depend 
on  adiurasti.     Inasmuch  therefore  as  the  wish  must  refer  to 
the  future  as  regards  the  time  of  speaking,  nothing  but  an  arbi- 
trary  adherence    to   a   mechanical   sequence   could   cause    the 
speaker  to  shift  the  tense  of  the  subjunctive  from  amet  to  amaret 
upon  making  the  subordination. 

Pers.  173  sciret 
See  p.  21. 

Poen.  681   sq. 

CO.  uidere  equidem  uos  uellem  quom  huic  aurum  darem. 
ADV.  illinc  procul  nos  istuc  inspectabimus. 
Vellem  is  a  potential  subjunctive  in  the  present.  The  tem- 
poral clause  dependent  on  uellem  refers  therefore  to  the  future, 
although  we  actually  have  the  imperfect,  which  is  due  to  me- 
chanical sequence.  Darem  cannot  possibly  refer  to  the  past. 
Note  also  inspectabimus,  which  is  synchronous  with  darem. 

Poen.   1066 

patrem  atque  matrem  uiuerent  uellem  tibi. 


Mechanical  Conformity  to  the  Sequence  Principle  39 

Vellem  is  another  potential  subjunctive  referring  to  the  pres- 
ent.    Again   uiuerent  is    mechanically   secondary. 

Poen.  1 25 1  sq. 

primum,  si  id  fieri  possit, 
ne  indigna  indignis  di  darent,  id  ego  euenisset  uellem; 

The  text  of  this  passage  is  uncertain  with  regard  to  possit 
and  euenisset.  Goetz  and  Schoell  note  that  the  reading  of  A 
is  POSSI(Me/  E)T.  Lindsay  gives  posset  for  A.  For  euenisset 
Goetz  and  Schoell  note  that  all  the  MSS  except  A  have  euenire. 
If  the  reading  posset  be  accepted,  the  5z-clause  forms  the  protasis 
of  a  present  contrary  to  fact  conditional  sentence.  In  that 
case  darent  dependent  on  posset  is  an  instance  of  mechanical 
sequence.  Vellem  must  refer  to  the  present,  and  we  should 
therefore  on  the  theory  that  the  dependent  subjunctives  denote 
absolute  time,  have  expected  eueniret  and  not  euenisset.  The 
present  subjunctive  in  a  present  contrary  to  the  fact  protasis 
is  used  in  Plautus  in  A  sin.  188  habeas;  393  sit;  Aul.  523  metiiam; 
Bacch.  635  sit;  Epid.  331  haheam;  Most.  555  sit  (text  corrupt 
here);  Pers.  215  sim;  Pseud.  274  possim;  also  Terence  And.  310 
sis.  See  on  this  point  Bennett  Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  I.  pp. 
273-274;  Lane  Latin  Grammar'^  §2075;  Allen  &  Greenough  New 
Latin  Grammar  §517  e.  and  n.  i  and  2;  Gildersleeve-Lodge 
Latin  Grammar  §596.  2,  Possit,  if  accepted  as  the  true  reading 
above,  may  be  regarded  as  future  less  vivid. 

,  Pseud.  12,19  fierem 
See  p.  21. 

True.  138  sqq. 

ego  expedibo. 
rem  perdidi  apud  uos,  uos  meum  negotium  apstulistis. 
si  rem  seruassem,  fuit  ubi  negotiosus  essem. 

The  perfect  indicative  fuit  is  here  used  instead  of  the  plu- 
perfect subjunctive  in  the  apodosis  of  a  past  contrary  to  fact 
conditional  sentence  to  denote  what  was  likely  or  certain  to 
happen.  Essem  dependent  on  fuit  is  put  in  the  imperfect  by 
mechanical  sequence,  for  the  context  shows  that  negotiosus 
essem  means  "where  I  might  now  be  employed." 


40  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

In  the  following  section  are  grouped  the  imperfect  subjunc- 
tives dependent  upon  secondary  tenses,  but  denoting  acts 
distinctly  future  from  the  standpoint  of  the  speaker,  and  thus 
taking  the  secondary  sequence  mechanically  and  in  disregard 
of  the  claims  of  absolute  time. 

Amph.  85  conciderent 
See  p.  45. 

Amph.  464  sq. 

amoui  a  foribus  maxumam  molestiam, 

patri  ut  liceret  tuto  illam  amplexarier. 
The  act  of  liceret  is  clearly  future  relatively  to  the  speaking, 
and  the  secondary  is  therefore  mechanical. 

Amph.  487  fieret 
See  p.  24, 

A  sin.  6  sqq. 

nunc  quid  processerim  hue  et  quid  mi  uoluerim 
dicam:  ut  sciretis  nomen  huiius  fabulae; 
nam  quod  ad  argumentum  attinet,  sane  breuest. 
nunc  quod  me  dixi  uelle  nobis  dicere 
dicam:   huic  nomen  graece  Onagost  fabulae; 
Sciretis  depends  on  processi  to  be  supplied  in  thought  from 
processerim,  and  is  mechanically  secondary,   for  the  name  of 
the  play  is  not  given  until  10. 

Asin.  336  sq. 

em  ergo  is  argentum  hue  remisit  quod  daretur  Saureae 
pro  asinis. 
Inasmuch  as  the  money  for  the  asses  is  still  to  be  paid  at  the 
time  of  speaking,  the  present  subjunctive  was  to  be  expected 
instead  of  daretur.     The  sequence  used  is  mechanical. 

Asin.  929 

iam  surrupuisti  pallam  quam  scorto  dares? 

The  act  of  dares  would  be  manifestly  future  to  the  time  of 
speaking.  The  secondary  sequence  is  therefore  used  mechan- 
ically, where  the  primary  was  to  be  expected. 


Mechanical  Conformity  to  the  Sequence  Principle  41 

Bacch.   645  sqq. 

nunc  amanti  ero  filio  senis, 
quicum  ego  bibo,  quicum  edo  et  amo, 
regias  copias  aureasque  optuli, 
ut  domo  sumeret  neu  foris  quaereret. 
The  acts  of  sumeret  and  of  quaereret  are  manifestly  future  to 
the  time  of  speaking.     The  sequence  in  these  verbs  is  therefore 
mechanically  secondary. 

Cas.  52  posceret 
See  p.  6. 

Cas.    604 

quin  eapse  me  adlegauit  qui  istam  arcesserem. 
The  act  of  arcesserem  is  distinctly  future  to  the  time  of  speak- 
ing.    The  secondary  sequence  is  therefore  mechanical. 

M.  G.   138  sqq. 

itaque  ego  paraui  hie  intus  magnas  machinas 
qui  amantis  una  inter  se  facerem  conuenas. 
nam  unum  conclaue,  concubinae  quod  dedit 
miles,  quo  nemo  nisi  eapse  inferret  pedem, 
in  eo  conclaui  ego  perfodi  parietem 
qua  commeatus  clam  esset  hinc  hue  mulieri; 
The  imperfects  facerem  and  esset  denote  the  relation  to  the 
past  verbs  paraui  and  perfodi  respectively,  though  the  ideas 
which  they  denote  are  definitely  thought  of  as  future  to  the  time 
of  speaking.     The  secondary  sequence  is  therefore  mechanical. 

M.  G.  956 

nam  hoc  negoti  clandestino  ut  agerem  mandatumst  mihi. 

The  act  of  agerem  is  clearly  future  to  the  time  when  these 
words  were  spoken.  The  secondary  sequence  is  therefore 
mechanical. 

M.  G.  1 158 

id  nos  ad  te,  si  quid  uelles,  uenimus. 
The  idea  of  uelles  is  clearly  future  to  the  time  of  speaking.     The 
secondary  sequence  is  therefore  mechanical.     Cf.  Amph.  870 


42  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

feram;  and  Merc.  669  persequar,  where  ueni  and  reueni  take 
the  primary  sequence  though  the  force  of  those  verbs  is  not 
appreciably  different  from  that  of  uenimus  here.  Cf.  further 
Poen.  1276  redirent  and  Caesar  B.  G.  IV.  i.  10  Atque  in  earn 
consuetudinem  adduxerunt,  ut  locis  frigidissimis  neque  vestitus 
praeter  pellis  haberent  quicquam,  quarum  propter  exiguitatem 
magna  est  corporis  pars  aperta,  et  lavarentur  in  fluminibus. 
Haberent  and  laverentur  in  result  clauses  dependent  upon  addux- 
erunt are  indisputably  present,  as  is  shown  by  est,  and  the  im- 
perfect subjunctive  is  due  to  mechanical  sequence. 

Most.  420  sqq. 

iussit  maxumo 
opere  orare  ut  patrem  aliquo  apsterreres  modo 
ne  intro  iret  ad  se. 

The  imperfects  are  used  to  denote  the  relation  to  the  iussit, 
though  the  acts  denoted  by  the  subjunctives  are  definitely 
thought  of  as  future  to  the  time  of  speaking.  The  secondary 
sequence  is  therefore  mechanical. 

Most.    714   sqq. 

tempus  nunc  est  senem  hunc  adloqui  mihi. 
hoc  habet!  repperi  qui  senem  ducerem, 
quo  dolo  a  me  dolorem  procul  pellerem. 
accedam. 

The  acts  of  ducerem  and  pellerem  are  thought  of  as  distinctly 
future  to  the  time  of  speaking.  The  secondary  sequence  is 
therefore  mechanical. 

Perfect  forms  of  reperio  taking  the  primary  sequence  are 
found  as  follows:  Capt.  568  superes;  Epid.  285  apscedat;  Epid. 
445  explices;  Rud.   1026  sies. 

True.  81  daret  depends  on  the  aoristic  perfect. 

For  the  sequence  of  verbs  governed  by  perfect  forms  of  inuenio, 
which  have  approximately  the  same  meaning  as  the  perfect 
forms  of  reperio,  see  pp.  7,  8,  15,  and  17. 

Most.  1 126  sq. 

nunc  ego  de  sodalitate  solus  sum  orator  datus 
qui  a  patre  eiius  conciliarem  pacem. 


Mechanical  Conformity  to  the  Sequence  Principle         43 

The  act  of  conciliarem  is  thought  of  as  distinctly  future  to  the 
time  of  speaking.  The  secondary  sequence  is  therefore  mechani- 
cal. 

Pers.  304  sq. 

quae  dixi  ut  nuntiares, 
satin  ea  tenes? 

The  act  of  nuntiares  is  distinctly  thought  of  as  future  to  the 
time  when  these  words  are  spoken.  The  sequence  is  therefore 
mechanical. 

Pseud.  55  sqq. 

ea  caussa  miles  hie  reliquit  symbolum, 
expressam  in  cera  ex  anulo  suam  imaginem, 
ut  qui  hue  adferret  eiius  similem  symbolum 
cum  eo  simul  me  mitteret.     ei  rei  dies 
haec  praestituta  est,  proxuma  Dionysia'. 
CALL     eras  ea  quidem  sunt: 
The  imperfect  subjunctives  are  used  to  denote  the  relation 
to  reliquit,  though  the  acts  which  they  denote  are  thought  of  as 
definitely  future  to  the  time  of  speaking.     The  secondary  se- 
quence is  therefore  mechanical. 

Pseud.  1233 

qui  ilium  ad  med  hodie  adlegauit  mulierem  qui  abduceret. 
The  act  of  abduceret  is  manifestly  future  to  the  time  of  speak- 
ing.    The  secondary  sequence  is  therefore  mechanical. 

Stich.  247  sqq. 

CR.     Panegyris 

rogare  iussit  ted  ut  opere  maxumo 

mecum  simitu  ut  ires  ad  sese  domum. 

GE.     ego  illo  mehercle  uero  eo  quantum  potest. 

iamne  exta  cocta  sunt?     quot  agnis  fecerat? 

CR.     ilia  quidem  nullum  sacruficauit.     GE.     quo  modo? 

quid  igitur  me  uolt?     CR.     tritici  modios  decem 

rogare,  opinor,  te  uolt.     GE.     mene,  ut  ab  se[se]  petam? 

CR.     immo  ut  a  uobis  mutuom  nobis  dares. 
The  act  of  ires  is  manifestly  future  to  the  time  of  speaking. 
The  sequence  is  therefore  mechanical.     Dares  depends  on  iussit 


44  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 

me  rogare  carried  along  in  thought  from  w.  248-9,  and  the 
sequence  is  thus  normal.  lussit  me  rogare  denotes  a  request 
to  be  made  on  Gelasimus  manifestly  after  the  speaking  of  v.  255. 
Hence  the  secondary  tense  dares  is  due  to  mechanical  sequence. 

Trin.  442  sqq. 

meu'  gnatus  me  ad  te  misit,  inter  te  atque  nos 
adfinitatem  ut  conciliarem  et  gratiam. 
tuam  uolt  sororem  ducere  uxorem ;  et  mihi 
sententia  eademst  et  uolo. 
The  act  of  conciliarem  is  thought  of  as  definitely  future  to  the 
time  of  speaking.     The  imperfect  is  used  to  denote  the  relation 
to  misit,  and  the  sequence  is  therefore  mechanical. 


VI 

Shift  in  the  Sequence 

By  virtue  of  the  fact  that  the  perfect  indicative  may  be  either 
primary  or  secondary,  it  sometimes  happens  that  one  and  the 
same  verb  is  regarded  in  these  two  senses  in  the  same  sentence, 
and  the  sequence  changes  to  suit  the  particular  viewpoint  that 
the  speaker  or  writer  has  for  the  moment. 

Amph.  64  sqq. 

nunc  hoc  me  orare  a  nobis  iussit  luppiter 

ut  conquistores  singula  in  subsellia 

eant  per  totam  caueam  spectatoribus, 

si  quoi  fauitores  delegatos  uiderint, 

ut  is  in  cauea  pignus  capiantur  togae; 

siue  qui  ambissent  palmam  <his>  histrionibus 

seu  quoiquam  artifici  (seu  per  scriptas  litteras 

seu  qui  ipse  amhisset  seu  per  internuntium), 

siue  adeo  aediles  perfidiose  quoi  duint, 

sirempse  legem  iussit  esse  luppiter, 

quasi  magistratum  sibi  alteriue  amhiuerit. 
Eant  and  capiantur  denote  the  present  state  resulting  from 
Jupiter's  act,  whereas  ambissent  and  amhisset  indicate  that  the 
speaker's  point  of  view  has  shifted  and  that  he  now  thinks  of 
the  actual  ordering.  Duint  and  amhiuerit  are  primary  by 
repraesentatio.     In  81  sqq.: 

hoc  quoque  etiam  mihi  in  mandatis  <is>  dedit 

ut  conquistores  fierent  histrionibus: 

qui  sibi  mandasset  delegati  ut  plauderent 

quiue  quo  placeret  alter  fecisset  minus, 

eius  ornamenta  et  corium  uti  conciderent. 
the  repraesentatio  has  been  dropped  and  the  speaker  has  the  past 
act  in  mind.     Moreover,  conciderent  is  slavishly  secondary,  for 
the  actual  punishing  of  the  offenders  would  take  place  after  the 
speaking  of  these  verses,  that  is,  at  the  end  of  the  performance. 

Amph.  205  sqq. 
See  p.  23. 

Amph.  225  sqq. 
See  p.  24. 

45 


VII 

Conclusion 

In  summarizing  this  investigation  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
the  large  majority  of  dependent  subjunctives  can  readily  be 
explained  according  to  either  theory  of  tense  usage  which  one 
happens  to  prefer,  that  of  sequence  or  that  of  non-sequence. 
What  conclusions  then  are  we  to  draw  from  a  study  of  the  excep- 
tions to  the  two  respective  theories? 

In  so  far  as  the  exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  sequence  are 
concerned,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  if  we  exclude  repraesentatio,  of 
which  there  are  forty-six  instances  pp.  23-31,  there  are  but  seven 
examples  (four  of  which  are  in  result  clauses)  remaining  (pp. 
32-33),  all  of  which  can  be  explained  on  logical  grounds.  A  few 
exceptions,  moreover,  would,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  expected. 

As  to  the  exceptions  to  the  doctrine  that  the  dependent  sub- 
junctives denote  absolute  time  and  not  time  relative  to  the  verb 
on  which  they  depend,  we  note  that  their  number  is  much  larger, 
thirty-eight  examples  (pp.  37-44),  which  are  arranged  in  two 
groups  of  eleven  and  twenty-seven  respectively.  In  the  ex- 
amples of  the  first  group  nothing  but  a  mechanical  application 
of  the  rule  of  sequence  can  have  caused  the  secondary  subjunc- 
tives where  the  claims  of  absolute  time  called  for  a  primary 
tense.  The  examples  of  the  second  group  (pp.  40-44)  will  not 
all  seem  equally  convincing  to  all  readers,  but  when  studied  as  a 
group  they  give  conclusive  evidence  of  a  tendency  to  use  the 
imperfect  tense  of  the  subjunctive  to  denote  an  act  which  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  speaker  is  distinctly  and  definitely  future. 
Naturally  this  tendency  can  be  seen  in  other  but  less  cogent 
examples.  How  strongly  the  feeling  for  the  secondary  imperfect 
dependent  upon  the  perfect  was  established  may  be  observed 
in  the  examples  of  clauses  in  the  imperfect  subjunctive  denoting 
a  result  lying  exclusively  in  the  present  (pp.  20-21).  Again,  in 
the  case  of  the  secondary  forms  dependent  upon  the  imperfect 
subjunctive  in  contrary  to  fact  conditions  and  in  potential 
subjunctives  (pp.  37-39),  where  the  requirements  of  absolute 
time  called  for  a  primary  tense,  to  explain  the  tense  by  saying 

46 


Conclusion  47 

that  "the  modal  feeling  in  the  speaker's  mind  which  expresses 
itself  in  the  main  sentence  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  very  likely 
to  continue  in  the  speaker's  mind  in  the  subordinated  sentence 
or  sentences,  either  quite  unchanged  or  but  slightly  shaded" 
(W.  G.  Hale,  ^.  /.  P.  VIII.  54),  is  to  grant  that  there  is  such  an 
influence  as  we  commonly  call  the  sequence  of  tenses. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  following  list  includes  the  works  to  which  reference  was 
made  more  or  less  constantly.  Works  less  freely  consulted  are 
not  listed  here,  although  the  writer  made  use  of  numerous 
editions  of  the  plays  of  Plautus  other  than  the  ones  mentioned 
below,  as  well  as  of  all  the  standard  Latin  grammars  in  English, 
in  French,  and  in  German. 

Allen  and  Greenough,  New  Latin  Grammar,  New  York,  1903. 

Auden,  H.  W.,  Pseudolus  of  Plautus,  Cambridge,  1896. 

Bennett,  C.  E.,  Latin  Grammar,  Boston,  1908. 

Bennett,  C.  E.,  The  Latin  Language,  Boston,  1907. 

Bennett,  C.  E.,  Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  The  Verb,  Boston,  1910. 

Brix,  Julius,  Ausgewdhlte  Komodien  des  T.  M.  Plautus,  Leipzig,  1873. 

Draeger,  A.,  Historische  Syntax  der  Lateinischen  Sprache,  Leipzig,  1874. 

Durham,  C.  L.,  Subjunctive  Substantive  Clauses  in  Plautus,  Cornell  Studies 

in  Classical  Philology,  XIIL 
Elmer,  H.  C,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Captivi,  Boston,  1900. 
Fennell,  C.  A.,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Stichus,  Cambridge,  1893. 
Fowler,  H.  N.,  The  Menaechmi  of  Plautus,  Boston,  ^910. 
Gildersleeve,  B.  L.,  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Latin,  American  Journal  of 

Philology,  VI  n,     228-231,  1887. 
Gildersleeve-Lodge,  Latin  Grammar,  third  edition.  New  York,  1905. 
Gray,  J.  H.,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Asinaria,  Cambridge,  1894. 
Gray,  J.  H.,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Epidicus^  Cambridge,  1893. 
Hale,  W.  G.,  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Latin,  American  Journal  of  Philology, 

VIL  446-465,  1886;  VIIL  46-77,  1887;  IX.  158-177,  1888. 
Hale-Buck,  Latin  Grammar,  Boston,  1903. 

Holtze,  Fr.  W.,  Syntaxis  Priscorum  Scriptorum  Latinorum,  Leipzig,  1861. 
Kent,  R.  G.,  Some  Tense  Sequences  in  Caesar,  De  Bella  Gallico,  The  Classical 

Weekly  7.  77-78,  1913. 
Kent,  R.  G.,  The  "Passing"  of  the  Sequence  of  Tenses,  The  Classical  Weekly, 

9.  2-7;  9-13,  1915. 
Kiihner,  Raphael,  A  usfuhrlicheGrammatik  der  Lateinischen  Sprache,  Hannover, 

1912. 
Lane,  G.  M.,  Latin  Grammar  for  Schools  and  Colleges  (revised  by  Morgan), 

New  York,  1903. 
Lindsay,  W.  M.,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Comoediae,  Oxford,  1903,  1910. 
Lindsay,  W.  M.,  Syntax  of  Plautus,  Oxford,  1907. 

Loewe,  Goetz,  Schoell,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Comoediae,  ed.  mai.,  Leipzig,  1884. 
Lorenz,  Aug.  O.  Fr.,  Ausgewdhlte  Komodien  des  T.  M.  Plautus,  Berlin,  1866, 

1876. 
Morris,  E.  P.,  Captives  and  Trinummus  of  Plautus,  New  York,  1898. 
Morris,  E.  P.,  Pseudolus  of  Plautus,  Boston,  1895. 

48 


Bibliography  49 

Palmer,  Arthur,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Amphitruo,  London,  1890. 

Sonnenschein,  E.  A.,  T.  M.  Plauti  Mostellaria,  second  edition,  Oxford,  1907. 

Sonnenschein,  E.  A.,  Rudens,  ed.  min.,  Oxford,  1901. 

Stoltz  u.  Schmalz,  Lateinische  Grammatik,  Miinchen,  19 10. 

Tyrrell,  R.  Y.,  Miles  Gloriosus  of  T.  Maccius  Plautus,  London,  1899. 

Wagner,  Wilhelm,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Aulularia,  London,  1901. 

Walker,  A.  T.,  The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Latin:   A  Study  Based  on  Caesar's 

Gallic  War,  Lawrence,  Kansas,  1899. 
Walker,  A.  T.,  Sequence  or  Harmony  of  Tenses?,  The  Classical  Journal,  10. 

246-251;  291-299,  19 1 5. 


INDEX  LOCORUM 


Page 

Amph.    12  praesim 3 

"         64  iussit 4 

"         66  eant 4)  45 

"         67  uiderint 45 

"         68  capiantur 4.  45 

"         69  ambissent 45 

"  71  ambisset 45 

"  72  duint 23,  45 

"  74  ambiuerit 23,  45 

'  82  fierent 45 

"         85  conciderent 40,  45 

"        115  siet 23 

"        ^77  fuerim 17 

195  nuntiem 4 

"       205  dicant 23 

"       206  uelint 23 

"        207  asportassent 23,  24 

209  sient,  dent,  petal 23 

*'       215  deducerent 24 

225  uicti  sint 24 

226  dederent 24 

"       431  ebiberim 21 

465  liceret 40 

"       487  fieret 24 

"       488  apsoluat 24 

"       489  ponatur 24 

"        490  celetur 24 

"       746  occideris 25 

"       749  sciam 34 

"       815  dicantur 18 

"       Sjoferam 4.  41 

"      1 123  uicerit 25 

"      1142  uorteres 13 

Asin.      7  sciretis 35,  40 

36  sit 13 

86  sit 17 

"      188  habeas 39 

"      248  sumam 11 

"      336  daretur 40 

"      393  sit 39 

"      443  sit  locatum 25 

"      589  uerberarem 37 


Page 

"      675  darem 37 

"      929  dares 40 

Aul.  319  liceret 24 

'     523  metuam 39 

'     550  accusem 26 

'     676  credam 12 

'      681  quaeram 12 

'      736  faceres,  ires 13 

'      743  uoluisse 4 

'      743  enicem 4 


Bacch.  287  gerant 26 

"       291  gereretur 24 

"       302  sciscerent 24 

353  reddat 5,  26 

"       382  dicant 12 

"       533  suscenseat 5 

555  fi^ceres 37 

"       576  reddat,  eat 14 

"       590  reddat 27 

"       591  eat 27 

"       607  nesciam 18 

"       648  sumeret,  quaereret 41 

"  690  noceat,  suscenseat.  .  .  5,  27 

"     1069  cederem 20,  38 

"     1082  possit 5 

Capt.  Arg.      7  amittatur 11 

"        28  mutet 27 

"        36  amittat 5 

"        49  maneat 14 

"       173  sciam 34 

"      267  uoluit 6 

"      267  inquinet 6 

"      379  mittam 6 

"      381  detn 6 

"      397  redimat,  remittant 6 

"      411  liceat 18 

"      422  laudetur 12 

"      467  procedat,  occeperit 14 

"      568  superes 17 

"      569  inuentu's 7,  8,  15,  17 


50 


Index  Locorum 


51 


Page 

Capt.  570  conuincas 17 

"      779  coniciam 12 

"      837  cenes 6 

"      837  nanctus  es 6,  11 

"      932  possim 18 

"     1004  delectem 27 

Cas.    48  posset 20,  38 

"        52  posceret 6,  41 

"       56  poscat 6 

"      105  curet 7 

"      25s  facias 19 

' '     424  luserim 32 

"      425  fecerim 32 

"     426  creauerim 32 

"     448  praetnittam 12 

"     604  arcesserem 41 

"     681  dicerem 27 

"     682-3  caueas 27 

"     891  opprimeret 24 

Cist.    1 1  meminerimus 19 

"      169  deferat 28 

"      568  deserat 28 

Cure.  Arg.      5  tnittat 11 

"       226  ferat 32 

"       372  sit,  siet 14 

"       559  abierit,  petam 28 

"       560  comedim 28 

"       608  peruenerit 14 

"       608  dixi 14 

Epid.  80  abierim 17 

"      285  apscedat 14 

"      331  habeam 39 

"      354fallatur,  apparetur 7 

"      355  inueni 7,  8,  15,  17 

"       416  redierit 28 

"      443  deceat 12 

"      445  explices 7,  42 

"      571  uideas,  adeas,  des 7 

"      638  ueniat 34 

"      712  fierem 13 

Men.  454  capiat 29 

"      475  sperauerit 17 


Page 

Men.  490  perderes 13 

"      500  sciam 34 

"      712  audeam 19 

"      755  «■< 15 

"      787-8  geras 8 

"      789  opserues 8 

"     1057  eas 29 

"     1067  pigeat 12 

"     1 100  ores 13 

Merc.    91  foret 25 

"      254  inuenisse 7,  8,  15 

"      254  sit,  uolueril 15 

"      344  loquar 15 

"      419  placeat 29 

"      472  ibo,  dabo il 

"      e^ifaceres 35 

"      669  persequar 8,  42 

M.G.Arg.ll.      5  nuntiaret 25 

"    "                       7  veniret 25 

"    "      131  deferat 29 

"    "      12,9 facerem 4^ 

"    "      143  esset 41 

"    "      263  participauerit 21 

"    "      295  pereas 8,  10 

"    "      295  paratum  est 8 

"    "      452  sitis 35 

"    "      514  nesciam 19 

"    "      728  ueneat 8 

"    "      729  pauperet 8 

"    "      767  inueni 8,  15 

"    "      768  admutiletur 8 

"    "      769  ecficiamus 9 

"    "      770  abducat,  habeat 9 

"    "      867  gesserit 15 

"    "      925  sim 35 

"    "      956  ogerew 41 

"    "      963  nequeas 30 

"    "      971  iussit 4 

"    "      972  facias 9 

"    "     1097  dixi 15 

"    "    1098  possit 15 

"    "    iii\6  abeat 9 

"    "    1158  uelles 41 

"    "    1238  sis 9 

"    "    1269  oderim 9 


52 


The  Sequence  of  Tenses  in  Plautus 


Page 

Most.    89  arbitrarer 36 

158  rear 35 

183  amarem 37,  38 

421  apsterreres 42 

422  iret 42 

555  sit 39 

715  ducerem 42 

716  pellerem 42 

942  procures,  quaeras, 

uideas,  audias 9 

969  uenerim 35 

1005  censeas 36 

1 124  ludificatu  sit 30 

1 127  conciliarem 42 

Pers.  Arg.      3  emeret 25 

"          56  pauerint 21 

"          82  facial 15 

"        119  darem 36 

"        173  sciret 21,  38 

215  sim 39 

"        304  nuntiares 43 

"        326  auferam 9 

"        496  faciam 13 

"        538  facerem 25 

583  fuerit 21 

"        621  mirer 10 

Poen.    547  siet 16 

554  possimus 19 

559  dederis 16 

603  ames,    pates, 

pergraecere 30 

681  darem 38 

775  priuent,  diuidant 10 

1020  fodiat,  metat 10 

1057  gnatus  sis 30 

1066  uiuerent 38 

1252  darent,  euenisset 39 

1276  redirent 42 

1407  pereas 13 


Page 

Pseud.    57  adferret 43 

"         58  mitteret 43 

"       274  possim 39 

"        579  po-raui 10 

"        583  uincam,  spoliem 10 

"       597  habitet 30 

"        796  coquat 31 

"      1233  abduceret 43 

"      1319  fierem 21,  39 

Rud.  129  adornaret 31 

130  faciat 31 

218  forem  nata 32 

379  faceret 36 

410  simus  natae 31 

602  darem 25 

61 1  dicam 16 

■jl-j  fabuler 10 

925  siem 16 

927  liberes 11 

1026  sies 16 

Stick.  249  ires 43 

"      255  dares 36,  43 

"      366  uenerit 25 

"      503  consulam 12 

Trin.    14  aleret 25 

"         15  exigat II 

283  siet 35 

"      443  conciliarem 44 

"      992  periisses 33 

True.  Arg.      3  tangat 11 

"          81  daret 42 

"         140  essem 39 

"         \()()  sciam 34 

"        280  nancta  es 1 1 

"        280  pudeat II 

"        292  reliqueris 22,  36 

"        383  gesseris 16 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFOENIA   LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED   BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration   of  loan  period. 


IMl    P    19J0 


6J^jl491B 


STACKS 

JUN    6  1979 


DEC    6  1979 

JUN  '     1988 
J^i  K  . )  7 

AUTO  DISC  ^ 


IBfs 


50m-7,'29 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


UC.BEBKELEYUBIIHH1ES 

llllllllllll 


